00684
1 MANITOBA CLEAN ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION
2
3
4
5
6
7 RED RIVER FLOODWAY EXPANSION PROJECT
8
9
10
11
12 =======================================
13 Thursday, February 17, 2005
14 Sheraton Hotel, 161 Donald Street
15 Winnipeg, Manitoba
16 ========================================
17
18 Volume 4
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
00685
1 APPEARANCES:
2 Clean Environment Commission:
3 Mr. Terry Sargeant - Chairman
Mr. Barrie Webster - Member
4 Mr. Wayne Motheral - Member
Mr. Doug Abra - Counsel
5 Mr. Dave Farlinger - Technical consultant
Ms. Cathy Johnson - Secretary to Commission
6 Ms. Joyce Mueller - Secretary
7 Manitoba Conservation:
8 Mr. Trent Hreno - Chair, Project Admin Team
Mr. Bruce Webb - Chair, Tech Advisory
9 Committee
Mr. Stewart Pierce - Counsel
10
11 Manitoba Floodway Authority:
12 Mr. Rick Handlon - Counsel
Mr. Jim Thomson
13 Mr. Doug McNeil
Mr. Doug Peterson
14 Mr. Cam Osler - Intergroup Consultants
Mr. John Osler - Intergroup Consultants
15 Mr. David Morgan - TetrES Consulting
Mr. George Rempel - TetrES Consulting
16 Mr. Robert Sinclair - KGS
Ms. Marci Friedman - KGS
17
18 Participants:
19 Mr. Bob Starr - Ritchot Concerned Citizens
Mr. Bob Bodnaruk - RM of Springfield
20 Mr. Steve Strang - RM of St. Clements
Mr. Orvel Currie - Counsel to Municipalities
21 Mr. Doug Chorney - Coalition for Flood
Protection North
22 Mr. Kerry McLuhan - Coalition for Flood
Protection North
23 Mr. Rob Loudfoot - 768 Association
Mr. Y. Shumuk - 768 Association
24 Paul Clifton - Paul Clifton
Mr. Jeff Frank - Rivers West
25 Gaile Whelan Enns - Manitoba Wildlands
Earl Stevenson - Peguis Indian Band
00686
1 Participants: (continued)
2
3 Mr. Jake Buhler - Cooks Creek Conservation
Mr. Lloyd Crooks - Cooks Creek Conservation
4 Mr. Jon Stefanson - Cooks Creek Conservation
Mr. Daryl Chicoine - Counsel
5
Presenters:
6 Robert Millman - RM of Ritchot
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
00687
1 INDEX OF EXHIBITS
2
3 47: Presentation by Robert Millman 762
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
00688
1 INDEX
2
CROSS-EXAMINATION OF MFA PANEL
3 Cross-examination by Panel 689
Cross-examination by Paul Clifton 795
4 Cross-examination by Maxine Clifton 897
Cross-examination by Cooks Creek Conservation
5 District 888
Cross-examination by Jeff Frank, Rivers West 936
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
00689
1 Thursday, February 17, 2005
2 Upon commencing at 9:00 a.m.
3
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I'd like to get the
5 morning proceedings going. Good morning. Welcome
6 to day four. On the order paper today, we have a
7 few opening comments by Mr. McNeil from the
8 Floodway Authority. That will be followed by some
9 more cross-examination by members of the CEC
10 panel. We have one person making a presentation
11 which will probably come after the CEC panelists
12 have completed their cross-examination or after
13 the morning break, whichever comes first. And
14 then following that, we will have the
15 participating groups engaging in
16 cross-examination.
17 Mr. McNeil.
18 MR. MCNEIL: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
19 good morning. I'd like to first provide you with
20 the results of my undertaking from Tuesday,
21 February 15th wherein you had asked about summer
22 operation. It wasn't officially recorded as an
23 undertaking in the transcript but I thought this
24 would be beneficial nonetheless.
25 Your question was how many times did
00690
1 we think that summer operation would occur in the
2 future on average for the new rule number 4 for
3 non-spring emergency operation.
4 Water Stewardship has researched the
5 records back since 1969. So that's a period of 36
6 years. And based on rule number 4, the province
7 would have operated the floodway for emergency
8 purposes in the summer for 22 of those 36 summers.
9 I'd also like to make some corrections
10 regarding statements I made yesterday about
11 raising the primary dykes temporarily for the 1 in
12 700 year flood after the floodway is expanded. I
13 believe I said that, and this is from memory
14 yesterday, that 25 kilometres required raising of
15 the total 110 kilometres. I'd like to be able to
16 verify that number but we haven't seen the
17 transcripts since we went late yesterday.
18 I checked our analysis and the correct
19 figure is 35 kilometres. Of this, 10 kilometres
20 requires raising more than 0.6 metres or 2 feet
21 and 25 kilometres requires raising less than 0.6
22 metres.
23 Also, I indicated that the cost of
24 placement and removal of the temporary clay dykes
25 is approximately $5 million. That is still
00691
1 correct. But realistically, you should be
2 including costs of field engineering site
3 supervision and dyke patrol. And that would then
4 bring the total to $7 million.
5 One last thing. I had indicated to
6 the last gentleman last night that the 700 year
7 flooded area map for north of Winnipeg was in the
8 EIS Supplementary Filing. In fact it's not but it
9 is in my presentation I made to the Commission and
10 therefore it is on the record. Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I'd like to
12 now ask a few questions about the inlet control
13 structure and these questions will relate to dam
14 safety issues.
15 I understand that the original design
16 notes and drawings for the inlet control structure
17 were lost because of fire damage; is that correct?
18 MR. CARSON: I believe that a good
19 number of the records were lost, not all of them.
20 But a lot of the detailed calculations were not
21 retrievable, yes.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. So then the full
23 design strengths of the actual constructed work
24 can only be calculated using a conservative
25 approach.
00692
1 MR. CARSON: Well, not necessarily.
2 There are critical reports and documents like that
3 that stated what the objective of the design was.
4 And they date back to the early 1960s. So
5 certainly the objective of what was required in
6 the design is known. Exactly how it achieved it
7 is not totally clear in some cases. I'm being
8 very general. It depends exactly on the specifics
9 of what you are referring to.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I have a general
11 question. I guess what I'm looking for or one of
12 the things I'm looking for is the condition of the
13 foundation under the inlet structure. And some
14 related questions. Was the bedrock foundation
15 under the inlet structure grouted in the 60's when
16 it was built? So start off with those. What is
17 the condition of the foundation under the
18 structure?
19 MR. SMITH: That question regarding
20 the foundation, there are drawings, construction
21 drawings that indicated that the foundation was to
22 be cleaned, you know, down to sound rock and then
23 concrete was placed directly on that. We have not
24 been able to ascertain if the bedrock below that
25 area was grouted. That's a question I can't
00693
1 answer at this time.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, have you done any
3 and what kind of investigation have you done of
4 the foundation of the structure?
5 MR. SMITH: Well, we haven't done
6 drilling at either abutment immediately adjacent
7 to the concrete structure through the fill
8 sections down into the bedrock.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Have you been able to
10 confirm the integrity of the bedrock supporting
11 the structure and the adjacent earth fill
12 embankments?
13 MR. SMITH: Well, we did sampling of
14 the soils through the embankments and some lab
15 testing on the quality of the materials and
16 analyzed both stability and the seepage
17 characteristics of the materials. And we do
18 have -- this is a report that was completed prior
19 to the preliminary design work. So in that
20 report, we had concluded that I think there was
21 phi-value of 35 degrees through the granular zone.
22 One of the questions that we had
23 addressed with that work was more a question of
24 piping or seepage concern. And the filter
25 criteria in that instance we felt were satisfied
00694
1 adequately.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: So you are confident
3 that the bedrock foundation is solid?
4 MR. SMITH: Yes. I'm not concerned
5 about the stability of the bedrock at that site.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: On an ongoing basis
7 then, is there an instrumentation program that's
8 been planned to monitor piezometric levels in the
9 bedrock and the embankments?
10 MR. SMITH: Yes. There are
11 piezometers that we installed in the embankments
12 and there are some existing ones below the
13 foundation of the structure.
14 I should clarify, the dam safety
15 review that was completed was done by SNC Lavalin
16 for this work. So I will follow up on their
17 report if there's anything further we can add to
18 this.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. A couple of
20 questions about the control gates. What is the
21 tolerance of the operation of the control gates to
22 a differential settlement of the control structure
23
24 MR. MCMILLAN: Dave McMillan, KGS.
25 The structure is essentially a massive structure
00695
1 founded on rock and there is certainly no
2 anticipated differential settlements. But
3 certainly there are gaps with seals between the
4 gates and the structure. So one would think
5 somewhere in the order of an 8th to a 16th
6 somewhere, a 16th to an 18th of an inch would be
7 tolerable in terms of those gates to differential
8 settlement. And there's certainly no sign that
9 those types of settlements have occurred.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: An 8th or a 16th of an
11 inch doesn't sound like very much.
12 MR. MCMILLAN: But given that you
13 build these structures on rock and really, the
14 last thing that is installed is the gates that, if
15 there were any settlements that were going to
16 occur, they would have occurred essentially before
17 the gates were installed. So you'd be looking at
18 differential settlements that would occur in time
19 after the installation of the gates. So for a
20 structure of that magnitude, those types of
21 settlements would really not be anticipated. And
22 that's probably a conservative estimate of the
23 tolerable settlements.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, I understand that
25 the original design criteria for maximum water
00696
1 level was based on a contingency situation while
2 the proposed maximum water level for the expanded
3 floodway is based on a normal operating condition.
4 So what would be the effect on risk to the
5 structure if a contingency occurs during the
6 rising limb of the hydrograph?
7 MR. MCMILLAN: The risk to the
8 structure in terms of stability.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: The water level.
10 MR. MCMILLAN: Probably Rick is the
11 best one to answer that in terms of water levels.
12 Mr. Carson.
13 MR. CARSON: The original design was
14 based on a maximum water level of 778 feet above
15 sea level and the operation was to follow -- I'm
16 not sure that they had broken it down into rule 1,
17 rule 2, rule 3 specifically at that time. But
18 that was really the spirit of the design of the
19 gate so that the operation would follow first rule
20 1 and then if the flood is large enough, it would
21 get up into rule 2 and the water level would rise.
22 And if there were problems that arose, let's say
23 in rule 1, there was the ability to go above rule
24 1 and have a let's say an early application of
25 rule 2 and going above state of nature. And that
00697
1 was considered I guess as a contingency.
2 That contingency still exists with the
3 expanded floodway. The structure is no different,
4 the operation will follow the same curves. So in
5 some respects, I would say the contingency still
6 exists.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I noted in
8 reading the materials that there was some
9 discussion around the issue of gate redundancy.
10 Can you tell me how that is going to be resolved
11 or what the position will be in respect of gate
12 redundancy?
13 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. The plan which is
14 included in the pre-design report and which was
15 assessed under the EIS is to have backup systems
16 for the existing gates. So there will be
17 redundancy in the systems that operate those
18 existing gates. Through the dam safety analysis,
19 that was confirmed. And also it was confirmed
20 that through the dam safety analysis, should
21 fine-tune some other design components outside of
22 the inlet control structure related to the backup
23 of the whole system and the reliability and
24 redundancy of the whole system. And that means
25 inlet control structure, the west embankment of
00698
1 the East Dyke and the West Dyke.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: So what will be done in
3 that regard or is that yet to come?
4 MR. MCMILLAN: Basically in their
5 assessment, dam safety assessment, they looked at
6 increasing the level of redundancy of a number of
7 the systems that operate the gates and looking at
8 upgrading some of the systems that may make the
9 gates vulnerable in the future. So there is
10 looking at the hydraulic system that operates the
11 gates, adding more redundant features to those.
12 One of the concerns with the gates is
13 that -- the biggest concern, if the gates were
14 actually, when they were in operation, were to
15 fail down, and one of the things that SNC had
16 recommended would be to adding some level of
17 buoyancy to the gate system so that you could
18 resist that downward motion with a buoyant chamber
19 within the gates. So that's under consideration
20 for final design. And just a number of other
21 redundant systems in the electrical/mechanical
22 systems that operate the gates. So those are all
23 systems that are being pursued at the final design
24 stage.
25 MR. CARSON: Excuse me, Mr. Chair,
00699
1 could I add to the answer that I gave with respect
2 to contingency?
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
4 MR. CARSON: I just thought of it as
5 Dave was speaking there. There is another aspect
6 with respect to the West Dyke. The original
7 design envisioned the water level possibly rising
8 as high as 778 feet and the inlet structure wasn't
9 fully designed for that, but the West Dyke had
10 only nominal free board at that condition. In
11 other words, just a nominal amount of difference
12 in elevation between the crest of the West Dyke
13 and this maximum water level of 778 feet.
14 Now as part of the project, we are
15 proposing to raise the crest of the West Dyke and
16 increase that free board to provide additional
17 contingency against wind and wave effects.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I
19 understand that the original design assumed a one
20 gate stuck up for one in a thousand year flood.
21 But the present design does not have a similar
22 what-if approach; is that correct?
23 MR. CARSON: The original design,
24 could you repeat that, the original design assumed
25 what?
00700
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Assumed a one gate
2 stuck up for a one in a thousand year flood
3 contingency.
4 MR. CARSON: I'm not familiar with
5 that criterion.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Well, we can
7 come back to that if we need to. We can perhaps
8 get some more information and ask it again.
9 I think a final question on this area.
10 Will there be an emergency preparedness plan
11 completed including a worst case dam breach study?
12 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, we'll be working in
13 the near future with Manitoba EMO first to look at
14 the evacuation of the city. One of the concerns
15 that came out of the dam safety workshop or review
16 was that the city is really at risk between a 75
17 year and the 700 year flood with the expanded
18 floodway. And so we need to finalize emergency
19 evacuation plans and that builds into the
20 emergency preparedness plan. And it's all part of
21 looking at the security of the system.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: The Canadian Dam
23 Association guidelines suggested that be in place
24 two years after the completion of construction.
25 Do you anticipate this?
00701
1 MR. MCNEIL: I expect that we'll be
2 completing that before we finish construction.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Just a
4 moment. Mr. Webster is going to lead some
5 questions on groundwater issues.
6 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
7 I wanted to ask some specific questions further
8 about the inlet structure. The first question is
9 looking at the condition of the material under the
10 inlet structure and comparing it with the
11 condition of the material under the outlet
12 structure, what's the difference in the anthology
13 of that ordovician material between the inlet and
14 outlet structure? Are we looking at the same kind
15 of material as the foundation?
16 MR. SMITH: I understand you're
17 wondering about the difference in the quality of
18 the bedrock underneath the two concrete
19 structures?
20 MR. WEBSTER: That's right.
21 MR. SMITH: I know at the outlet
22 structure, the drilling and coring that was done
23 there, the bedrock quality is very good, very low
24 number of fractures, so limited seepage potential.
25 I'm just trying to -- I'm not sure
00702
1 that I can make a direct reference to the inlet
2 quality. I might have to get back to you on that
3 question. I'd like to just follow up on that.
4 But I'm not aware of any significant difference in
5 the rock quality at the inlet structure.
6 Again, as indicated, the construction
7 drawings for the inlet were to prepare the surface
8 down to sound rock which would mean any weathered
9 rock would be removed, any poor quality zones
10 would be cleaned out and normally they would put
11 in a slush concrete infill.
12 At the inlet structure at the time of
13 construction, they had to build a coffer-dam in
14 the river and the river bottom had a lot of
15 granular zones, alluvial materials in the river
16 bottom. So they had seepage problems there
17 resulted in grouting of that area as well as
18 pumping to control the groundwater. So there was
19 a lot of grouting done at that time to control
20 that seepage.
21 At the outlet structure, there was a
22 limited amount of seepage, very little inflow
23 during construction. And of course, it was built
24 on the bank of the river. It wasn't in the river
25 bottom so there was a bit of a difference there in
00703
1 the construction.
2 MR. WEBSTER: The reason I'm asking
3 this question is I understand that some of the
4 drill holes at the outlet structure, and those
5 were holes A03 - 9501, 9503 and 9504 showed vuggy
6 dolomitic limestone, broken core zones and loss of
7 drilling fluids.
8 MR. SMITH: At the outlet structure?
9 MR. WEBSTER: At the outlet structure.
10 Now my understanding then is, the question I guess
11 is, is the limestone foundation at the inlet
12 structure, I mean it's some distance away, but is
13 that limestone structure there similar? I mean
14 you've given some indication that you would have
15 expected that they would have taken out any
16 unsound material. But we've been led to believe
17 also that there may be clay lenses in that
18 limestone under the inlet structure. And I
19 wondered if you could answer the question or the
20 general nature of the question that I'm presenting
21 to you as to the soundness of that material under
22 the inlet structure?
23 MR. SMITH: Mr. McMillan just
24 indicated that again, just to draw your attention
25 to the dam safety review report, Appendix "C",
00704
1 that they hadn't identified any concerns regarding
2 the foundation of the bedrock as such. I'm not
3 aware of any major clay seams in that area that
4 would be problematic for the stability of the
5 structure. But I'd like to, again I'll review
6 that and I'd like to get back to you on that
7 point.
8 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. I'd like to ask
9 you further, there is a statement in the IR number
10 11(c) for the Commission. Defining the hydraulic
11 gradient through that bedrock as being 0.03 metres
12 per metre. Is that correct?
13 MR. SMITH: Yes.
14 MR. WEBSTER: It's the right units?
15 Now, the question I have is which monitoring and
16 observation wells and intervals were used to
17 define that hydraulic gradient? And this is
18 through the bedrock.
19 MR. SMITH: Just to clarify, that was
20 IR --
21 MR. WEBSTER: 11(c) from the
22 Commission.
23 MR. SMITH: I believe that gradient
24 was calculated based on the head differential for
25 a flood event. Like under normal conditions,
00705
1 there will be no gradient in the river bottom
2 across the structure. There would be equal heads
3 or equal surface water levels on upstream and
4 downstream.
5 So what I had looked at there was for
6 a flood event, taking the upstream water surface,
7 comparing that and the difference to the
8 downstream tail water level across the length of
9 the structure and calculating a gradient on that
10 basis.
11 MR. WEBSTER: One of the concerns I
12 guess with respect to a limestone foundation is
13 that it brings to mind what happens to limestone
14 under the right kind of chemistry and water
15 movement and that you can get voids such as we see
16 in the Interlake in that limestone structure. And
17 I guess the questions that I am asking have to do
18 with the possibility of essentially erosion or
19 dissolution of that rock structure creating voids
20 that would destroy the integrity of the rock
21 foundation under the inlet structure. I wondered
22 if you had looked at that at all, if you have some
23 evaluation of that possibility?
24 MR. SMITH: That was considered
25 although usually those -- the formation of the
00706
1 solution channels in limestone is a very very
2 long-term event. And certainly under the life of
3 the structure, I wouldn't anticipate any large
4 amount of solutioning to have occurred,
5 particularly under these low gradients and
6 short-term events. So it wasn't a concern.
7 MR. WEBSTER: I agree. And I guess in
8 terms of probabilities, this is a reasonable
9 assumption. On the other hand, is it not
10 relatively straightforward to run some drill holes
11 and essentially evaluate whether that's true?
12 MR. SMITH: Yes, that could be done.
13 MR. WEBSTER: And that's not been done
14 to date?
15 MR. SMITH: To verify the current
16 integrity of the limestone under the structure?
17 MR. WEBSTER: Exactly.
18 MR. SMITH: No, we haven't drilled any
19 holes through the structure.
20 MR. WEBSTER: And those drill holes
21 could come either from above or at an angle from
22 the banks and so forth. So it's a relatively
23 straightforward thing to do?
24 MR. SMITH: Yes, it could be done.
25 MR. WEBSTER: I'd like to turn now to
00707
1 the groundwater question and move somewhere some
2 distance along the project to the area where
3 groundwater is of particular concern. I guess
4 I'll start off by asking could you provide more
5 details regarding the proposed monitoring network;
6 that is the monitoring wells that you're using,
7 the distance from the floodways and the aquifers
8 that are actually either being monitored or
9 planned to be monitored?
10 MR. MORGAN: I'll ask Mr. Smith.
11 Maybe he can give more detail on that. We're
12 looking for Appendix "M" which is a large binder
13 on all the existing baseline monitoring.
14 MR. WEBSTER: I have Appendix "M" here
15 and you're going to put the drawing on the --
16 MR. MORGAN: He's looking.
17 MR. WEBSTER: Okay, good. Can you
18 refer me to the section while you're preparing to
19 display it?
20 MR. REMPEL: We're looking for drawing
21 251H002G.
22 MR. WEBSTER: And that's in which
23 annex, please?
24 MR. REMPEL: "M" as in Mary.
25 MR. MORGAN: In the drawings tab.
00708
1 MR. WEBSTER: That's binder "M".
2 MR. MORGAN: Binder "M" and in the
3 drawings tab.
4 MR. WEBSTER: There are annex sections
5 here in binder "M".
6 MR. REMPEL: There's a section that
7 says "Drawings" and that's the section you'll find
8 this particular --
9 MR. WEBSTER: I have it open. I'm
10 sorry, you are correct. I had it open at that
11 section. Go ahead.
12 MR. REMPEL: Right after the text,
13 there should be a "Drawings" section.
14 MR. WEBSTER: Indeed there is. Thank
15 you.
16 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, this is from
17 our preliminary engineering report, Appendix "M",
18 drawing 251H002. This shows the northern half of
19 the project. So the floodway -- just coming up
20 through here, this is the outlet structure and
21 this is the area I understand of prime interest.
22 And this shows the provincial well monitoring
23 network immediately along the floodway. A lot of
24 the wells are directly in the right of way. There
25 are additional wells further out. And in fact,
00709
1 within the study area, there is a significant
2 number of monitoring points.
3 Just to be clear, between the Highway
4 59 north and the outlet structure, so within this
5 region here, we have a total of 38 monitoring
6 wells on the west side of the floodway. And that
7 would include 18 in bedrock and 20 in the
8 overburden.
9 And so from the pre-construction date,
10 a lot of these wells had been monitored on a
11 continuous basis. So there is a continuous water
12 level record. And there's also been water quality
13 monitoring at some of these wells over that period
14 of record. And in particular during flood events,
15 there has been, with this continuous record, some
16 excellent databases that had been obtained.
17 Now in addition to that provincial
18 system, we have gone in and installed additional
19 monitoring wells at areas of interest. For
20 example, we picked four representative sections
21 along the floodway, one at the CPR Keewatin
22 Bridge, which is right near the base here, a
23 second set at the Oasis Springhill area, Highway
24 59, another set at Dunning Road and another set up
25 near the outlet structure. And the drilling here
00710
1 was to put both wells down into the bedrock, into
2 the till and into the clay and do a very rigorous
3 monitoring program.
4 Those sections were used as a basis
5 for a lot of our studies where we did ultimately
6 do detailed groundwater modelling to predict the
7 influence of flood events and in fact had some
8 good data to base that on because those also
9 included provincial wells with the long-term
10 monitoring.
11 MR. WEBSTER: Are those wells capable
12 of sampling with integrity at several levels
13 within one well?
14 MR. SMITH: Well, there were separate
15 installations. To ensure the integrity, we'd have
16 a separate well in the till and a different well
17 down into the bedrock.
18 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. That's what I was
19 thinking. So 38 wells overall?
20 MR. SMITH: Well, that's 38 wells just
21 on the west side of the floodway. Now some of
22 those are the historical wells and some are the
23 more recent ones that we've installed.
24 MR. WEBSTER: Are you sampling then
25 the upper and lower aquifers? I gather that's an
00711
1 accurate description of the situation there?
2 Correct me if I'm wrong.
3 MR. SMITH: Well, we're sampling the
4 till and the bedrock. Is that what you meant by
5 upper and lower --
6 MR. WEBSTER: Well, I understand at
7 least in some of that area that there is an
8 aquifer above the bedrock that is being used for
9 some of the wells and some wells go deeper into
10 the bedrock.
11 MR. SMITH: Well, the Birds Hill area
12 has that upper sand and gravel aquifer. That's a
13 separate system. And we do have some wells that
14 are sampling the upper water quality there, yes.
15 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. I guess you were
16 telling us that there were 35 wells. So is there
17 a higher number of wells that you're sampling
18 from?
19 MR. SMITH: We sampled a total of 20
20 wells, not all of the wells there. I was going to
21 say we selected wells to try to be representative
22 along the length of the floodway.
23 Now those are all -- the provincial
24 wells are the ones that we installed as part of
25 the program. Separate to that, there's domestic
00712
1 wells and we sampled a total of 25 domestic wells.
2 MR. WEBSTER: Now, domestic wells
3 though are another kettle of fish, aren't they?
4 MR. SMITH: Yes.
5 MR. WEBSTER: Sampling wells are
6 designed with some integrity so that you can be
7 confident that the water you are sampling is
8 coming from the level that you've got the well to?
9 MR. SMITH: That is correct.
10 MR. WEBSTER: Have you examined the
11 domestic well you used from which you have taken
12 samples to see whether in fact they are
13 constructed properly to avoid surface
14 contamination?
15 MR. SMITH: No. The domestic wells
16 are typically sealed at surface and you don't have
17 ready access to them. It will be a fairly major
18 effort to expose those wells. And typically, the
19 home-owners, it's not something that is easily
20 done.
21 MR. WEBSTER: I don't follow what
22 you're saying.
23 MR. SMITH: Well, our monitoring wells
24 at surface, we have a steel casing with a lockable
25 cap. And just by removing that cap, you have
00713
1 direct access to the well.
2 For domestic wells, for part of it is
3 for their integrity of their domestic supply and
4 to avoid contamination, they are sealed. So the
5 pump in the system is totally sealed. There is no
6 ready access to be able to get down into the well
7 if you will.
8 MR. WEBSTER: So assuming the well is
9 constructed properly and is delivering water to
10 the domestic residents, the user, surely that's
11 where you're taking the water from?
12 MR. SMITH: Yes. The water is usually
13 taken what we refer to as raw water before any
14 treatment at the residence and the tap will be run
15 to flush the system out prior to taking the
16 samples.
17 MR. WEBSTER: So the fact that the
18 well itself is sealed is no particular problem
19 because there's still an access.
20 MR. SMITH: That's correct. However,
21 as you indicated, the integrity of the
22 installation of the well is something that isn't
23 readily apparent at the time of drilling whether
24 or not the well was grouted if there's any surface
25 interconnection, you know, below the ground.
00714
1 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. I guess where I'm
2 going with this particular line of questioning is
3 I'm wondering with the number of wells you're
4 talking about, whether you have sufficient
5 monitoring wells to be able to deal with the
6 issues at hand to do with possible -- first of
7 all, let's take this carefully. Have you
8 sufficient wells to deal with the water levels
9 issues that had been brought up in the course of
10 talking about the effects of the floodway, of the
11 expanded floodway?
12 MR. SMITH: Yes. I believe the water
13 level coverage is good. There are some select
14 areas, local special concern areas that we do
15 intend to install additional monitoring wells.
16 For example, during the construction dewatering
17 around some of the bridges or the aquaduct, it's
18 very likely we want to put in some additional
19 wells. If there's a need for any construction
20 pumping dewatering, that we want to be able to
21 monitor closely the influence from that activity.
22 So we do have funds available for that. And
23 that's part of a program that's been identified to
24 be completed prior to construction with the
25 ultimate review and permiting from Water Rights
00715
1 Department.
2 MR. WEBSTER: Let me just take it a
3 little further before I go on to the other topics
4 to do with water quality. One of the challenges
5 that I guess is coming, because of the fact that
6 the expansion of the floodway may lead to enhanced
7 loss of groundwater through seepage and because of
8 the fact that people near the floodway want to
9 extract more water for domestic use, how does your
10 network of wells allow you to distinguish between
11 the groundwater loss from seepage to the floodway,
12 which is floodway responsibility, and groundwater
13 usage which draws it down, the same water, for
14 domestic purposes?
15 MR. SMITH: That's not an easy thing
16 to do. I'll just indicate on the east side of the
17 floodway, the recharge that is occurring is
18 available to developers in well systems prior to
19 reaching the floodway. So that water can be
20 captured.
21 Now west of the floodway, certainly
22 there is -- some of the water that's discharged to
23 the floodway is no longer available to those
24 owners, in terms of separating out the two, I
25 guess we have an existing piezometric level based
00716
1 on the current floodway system and the regional
2 use. And in reality, you have an ongoing
3 development issue here where they are probably
4 reaching, in some areas they have reached, limits
5 of the capacity of the aquifer.
6 And the province has recently come out
7 and indicated they are going to do a detailed
8 regional water management study and that would be
9 really part of that program, to evaluate not only
10 the influence of the floodway but of all the other
11 groundwater users in the area. And that's, you
12 know, an important study to be taken.
13 MR. WEBSTER: So you would -- sorry.
14 MR. MCNEIL: Could I just,
15 Dr. Webster, just add that what Mr. Smith is
16 talking about is Minister Ashton, minister
17 responsible for Water Stewardship, had indicated
18 in a letter to the municipalities east and north
19 of the floodway that Manitoba Water Stewardship
20 will undertake this regional groundwater study
21 over the next couple of years.
22 MR. MORGAN: Could I just clarify too.
23 We're talking about a lot of the baseline
24 conditions and I wasn't sure one of your questions
25 there is we don't expect more leakage. As we
00717
1 showed yesterday the areas where we expected there
2 will be seals, we don't expect more leakage from
3 this project. However there will be monitoring, I
4 guess as you are discussing, to confirm this.
5 MR. WEBSTER: I guess the questions
6 I'm raising have to do with the perception that
7 the floodway itself may be responsible for water
8 loss.
9 MR. MORGAN: Currently.
10 MR. WEBSTER: But in the future after
11 you have expanded the floodway and the water level
12 goes down in the associated aquifers --
13 MR. MORGAN: We don't expect -- we
14 don't expect any deepening. We don't expect the
15 water level to go down.
16 MR. WEBSTER: But how are you going to
17 show that in fact the floodway is not responsible
18 for lowering of the water in the aquifers when in
19 fact you're telling us that you don't expect it to
20 go down? Supposing it goes down?
21 MR. MORGAN: Okay.
22 MR. WEBSTER: How do you say to the
23 folks around about we didn't do it. It was you
24 folks using more water than you should have done.
25 How are you going to show that?
00718
1 MR. MORGAN: I guess that's what the
2 regional modelling study should assist with and
3 also there should be monitoring and, you know, how
4 people are using water.
5 MR. WEBSTER: Isn't it in your
6 interest to make sure that that's done properly
7 and not waiting for some other study to happen
8 that may or may not happen?
9 MR. MCNEIL: We will be working in
10 conjunction with Water Stewardship and we've built
11 on the existing data that they've had, the
12 monitoring data all these years since the original
13 floodway was constructed. And we're going to do
14 more monitoring for the reasons that Mr. Smith
15 indicated and we'll be working closely with water
16 stewardship. But they are taking the lead role in
17 that regional study as they should.
18 MR. WEBSTER: I guess I'm not
19 questioning who should do what, I'm questioning
20 whether in fact the thing is going to be done
21 quickly enough to protect the Floodway Authority
22 from difficulties that may arise from people
23 saying, you know, it's your fault that the water
24 level went down.
25 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, we are
00719
1 measuring the base flow along the channel to
2 establish what the current discharge rates are.
3 And you have to appreciate that it does vary from
4 year to year in a dry year versus a wet year. And
5 it is a difficult thing to achieve. You have to
6 measure that base flow when there's absolutely no
7 other surface water coming into the system. So in
8 fact, we are out there right now doing the
9 measurements. We have installed weirs at several
10 locations along the channel and we'll be obtaining
11 data. And we did that last year as well to obtain
12 some base flow measurements.
13 MR. WEBSTER: So I guess going back to
14 my earlier question, do you have sufficient wells
15 to be able to do that job properly?
16 MR. SMITH: Wells to measure the water
17 level? Again, we will be installing some. I
18 stopped a little short there. I had indicated we
19 were installing some wells for construction
20 dewatering. There will be some additional wells
21 also for the water level monitoring. You never
22 have enough wells. There's always going to be a
23 local condition that you have to address. So
24 there is a contingency fund that if issues come
25 up, to address those, you know, on an as-required
00720
1 basis.
2 MR. MCNEIL: Dr. Webster, I'd just
3 like to add that the Manitoba Floodway Authority
4 is certainly an interested stakeholder in this
5 whole groundwater business. And we don't want to
6 add to the leakage that's there now with the
7 expansion of this project. And we're very much
8 pleased with Water Stewardship's initiative in
9 this groundwater study. As I said, we'll be
10 cooperating with them and sharing our data with
11 them and working with them. And they have
12 indicated that they will be doing this over the
13 next couple of years. So that's good news.
14 MR. WEBSTER: I agree that it's good
15 news. I would suggest that I'd want a few
16 guarantees from them that the work is going to be
17 done in a timely fashion so the responsibility
18 that you folks bear is definable.
19 Let me go further then to the
20 monitoring of the system that's required for water
21 quality, what information will be used to assess
22 potential claims regarding bacteriological and/or
23 chemical impact on residential water wells. Let's
24 separate those, let's talk about bacteriological
25 questions, because that has been one of the issues
00721
1 that the municipalities in the area have brought
2 up. So what information will be used to assess
3 potential claims regarding bacteriological
4 contamination of the water resource that those
5 folks are using for domestic water by tapping into
6 the aquifer or aquifers that are adjacent to the
7 floodway.
8 MR. MORGAN: I'll just start and then
9 pass it over to Mr. Smith for the details. But I
10 just want to make it clear that in the EIS we do
11 talk about surface water conditions as described
12 in engineering reports, and about the regional and
13 local models they've done at certain points.
14 Mr. Smith talked about four points north of, in
15 the north part of the floodway. And those models
16 were calibrated to the local data and groundwater
17 in the area, and that model actually does help you
18 understand things like which way is the
19 groundwater flowing. Like it's flowing from Birds
20 Hill, as we showed yesterday, west. So the
21 direction of flow tells you where the potential
22 contamination would come from.
23 The direction of flow, as based by a
24 different monitor -- I don't know if there is any
25 more details you want to add?
00722
1 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, we'd like to
2 have two additional witnesses added to our team
3 who can address some of those points.
4 MR. MORGAN: We have a couple of
5 hydrogeologists from KGS who worked very closely
6 on the details on a lot of the development of the
7 wells and the monitoring that we could swear in to
8 answer some of these detailed questions.
9 MR. SMITH: And they are Dr. Rob
10 Sinclair and Marcie Friedman.
11 ROBERT SINCLAIR: SWORN
12 MARCIA FRIEDMAN: SWORN
13 MR. SINCLAIR: Maybe just give me
14 another shot at the question, just repeat it so I
15 can answer it?
16 MR. WEBSTER: This is the general
17 question and I want to go into more specifics in a
18 minute. What information will be used to assess
19 potential claims regarding bacteriological
20 contamination of the water source which people are
21 tapping into with their wells?
22 MR. SINCLAIR: This is a complex
23 question. In Manitoba at any given time there is
24 a lot of wells that are let's say 25, 30 per cent
25 are contaminated at any given time, there is a lot
00723
1 of interference from the septic fields, et cetera,
2 that can complicate the issue. But I think what
3 we're looking at for this is certainly there will
4 be a more complete background check of all wells
5 in the area. There may be some additional
6 surveillance wells put in so that we can test not
7 only quality and -- well, quality in terms of
8 chemical and microbiological characteristics
9 closer to the floodway, but we definitely are
10 going to look at additional testing away from the
11 floodway and into the domestic well areas.
12 MR. WEBSTER: So do you have any
13 background data at the moment?
14 MR. SINCLAIR: We don't.
15 Historically, though, there has not been any
16 complaints, over the 35 years of operation we have
17 no complaints of water quality concerns regarding
18 the floodway operation.
19 MR. WEBSTER: Not too far to the east
20 of the floodway is an area that was under a boil
21 water advisory for years. That probably is not
22 affected by the floodway, but, I mean, this kind
23 of thing is --
24 MR. SINCLAIR: We will have to deal
25 with some of those issues and just look into them.
00724
1 As I say, there will be more testing done to
2 evaluate that sort of concern.
3 MR. WEBSTER: Let's get specific
4 because, yes, that's obviously what you have to
5 do. But the kinds of difficulties that the
6 floodway is likely to create are associated with
7 an event that is a flood event, which is a
8 short-term sort of a thing. Other than the kinds
9 of things that were implied in comments that were
10 made before the hearing itself actually started
11 back on Monday, when people intimated that there
12 was raw sewage going into the floodway at a couple
13 of points on a more or less constant basis. I'm
14 not sure if you want to address, first of all,
15 whether in fact there is sewage going into the
16 floodway in its resting state? Maybe we should
17 establish that first.
18 MR. MORGAN: I'll just start with this
19 and some of the details can be discussed by the
20 KGS team.
21 This concern of, what's called a
22 surface water intrusion concern. I was one of the
23 people taken on the tour by Mr. Jonasson in which
24 he did talk about the different concerns in the
25 area with septic fields, as well as the floodway
00725
1 and the discharge of the lagoon into the floodway.
2 And we do note in our EIS that the floodway does
3 accept wastewater, although it's to be treated,
4 it's not the floodway's responsibility to ensure
5 that, it's Manitoba Conservation's, and they have
6 licences, as well as land drainage, which should
7 be containing land drainage, not sewage. So all
8 that's acknowledged. And we took that very
9 seriously, and the KGS team also did. They went
10 and did additional modelling, as he talked about
11 earlier, at key locations along the floodway,
12 north by the floodway. One is at the Keewatin
13 bridge, two are on the Springhill area, and one at
14 the Dunning Road, near where that lagoon discharge
15 goes.
16 Those modelling studies are described
17 for the existing condition in the EIS under the
18 surface water intrusion subtitle there, and then
19 what would be the effect of the expansion, would
20 it change anything in terms of the surface water
21 intrusion? And there's quite a lot of detail in
22 appendix P -- well, it's a small report which is
23 based on all the data in appendix M to calibrate
24 it, and it's quite an easy read with some pictures
25 explaining how the modelling is done. As I said,
00726
1 the models were calibrated, they did a lot of --
2 and this is easily reviewable in the reports. I'm
3 not part of the team that did this analysis. I
4 reviewed the reports for the EIS.
5 The calibration was done by looking at
6 what is actually the materials in the area with
7 core samples. It's also done by -- as Mr. Smith
8 said earlier, there's a very good record of flow
9 water levels for the wells that are adjacent to
10 the floodway, and from that, during the flood they
11 could calibrate saying their model could tell
12 what -- could simulate what's happening during the
13 flood in terms of water levels and flow. So that
14 model was then used to determine what would happen
15 during a flood as surface water does intrude,
16 we're not saying it doesn't, but the rate of
17 intrusion is -- well, it's detailed in that
18 report. I don't know if we have -- we have some
19 pictures and examples that they could get into
20 details and talk about it, and I could too.
21 MR. WEBSTER: Basically, before we got
22 into that, I wanted to establish how you could
23 tell that the floodway itself was uncontaminated
24 before any kind of flood event came along?
25 MR. MORGAN: We do not assume that it
00727
1 is uncontaminated. That is the essence of doing
2 that modelling. Any surface water runoff drainage
3 could have some bacteria in it, it's not going to
4 have zero fecal coliforms. The idea is, the thing
5 that was checked is, is the intrusion rates as it
6 goes through, it is kind of filtered through the
7 silty tills, is it at a slow enough rate that it
8 is not expected to cause any problems? And is the
9 expansion not expected to cause any significant
10 effect in water quality? And that is the
11 assessment, this is the information we use to make
12 the assessment.
13 MR. WEBSTER: Let's take this step
14 wise. Is there in fact infiltration, in the
15 resting state of the floodway, is there
16 infiltration from the channel into the
17 groundwater, or is it the other way?
18 MR. MORGAN: It is the other way.
19 That is the concern, obviously, is they are losing
20 water from the, or not -- the existing aquifers,
21 as we showed yesterday in the figures, up well
22 into, they seep up into the floodway at a certain
23 location so that the low flow channel is being fed
24 by the floodway, not the other way around -- or
25 from the springs, not the other way around.
00728
1 MR. WEBSTER: So while there's no
2 desire for the floodway to carry contaminated
3 water in its resting state, if it is there, the
4 likelihood of it contaminating the aquifer is low;
5 is that correct?
6 MR. MORGAN: Yes.
7 MR. WEBSTER: Now, if we get into the
8 flood situation, which is an unusual but
9 nevertheless an important situation, then the head
10 that's there controlling whether things infiltrate
11 or not changes substantially. And I think, as you
12 say, there are some diagrams that show that, or I
13 suppose they are models that show what could
14 happen at various stages, various conditions of
15 material under the channel. Can you produce those
16 for us?
17 MR. MORGAN: I can produce a couple of
18 examples, and maybe then you can pull up the
19 reports.
20 MR. WEBSTER: As I recall, there's an
21 indication of the likely extent of infiltration,
22 the likely time it will take for that to restore
23 itself because of the groundwater movement; am I
24 correct?
25 MR. MORGAN: Yes. Appendix P, and
00729
1 it's summarized in the EIS, talks about the
2 surface water intrusion modelling done at these
3 four locations. And I'll talk about that a little
4 bit more in detail, because there is two things
5 that were looked at. One is the likely case, the
6 calibrated case in which all the data fits.
7 And then beyond that what modelers
8 like to do is a sensitivity analysis. In the
9 sensitivity analysis you assume things are much
10 different than reality, but much worse -- you
11 could assume better or worse, usually it is much
12 worse, so you can understand where should you be
13 doing your monitoring to take care of these
14 unanticipated events. So you do the sensitivity
15 analysis.
16 What you do is assume that instead of
17 say a silty till that there is sand, and if there
18 is sand there instead of the silty till, how fast
19 would it go down in towards the aquifer?
20 All that analysis was done, which gave
21 us a lot of comfort that they didn't, you know,
22 they didn't try and just look at the expected case
23 but wanted to look at what would be the
24 unanticipated events so that they could better
25 plan the monitoring network for the future.
00730
1 MR. WEBSTER: While we're waiting for
2 that to come up on the screen, I wonder if you
3 could address the issue, maybe we can address it
4 as we go. If you're ready, go ahead, we'll come
5 back to that in a minute.
6 MR. MORGAN: Just to start where we
7 were yesterday, because then it is easier to look
8 at the map, this is the general, general flows
9 coming from -- this is the map of the area and
10 that's the floodway here, and this is Birds Hill,
11 and the flow is going generally from east to west.
12 Next -- then I just zoom in to show
13 you where they did the -- I just zoomed in. So
14 this is the Birds Hill area. They did additional
15 localized, what is called contaminant transfer
16 model, to see how things flow from the, or
17 potentially could flow during a flood from four
18 locations. I have the general locations here.
19 One is CPR -- there is two right around this area,
20 we talked yesterday about Springhill, one at Oasis
21 Road and one at Springhill. And then at Dunning
22 Road, this is the location where that lagoon
23 discharge goes in around there. So these four
24 locations were studied in more detail. And I just
25 have a couple of examples that we had out of the
00731
1 EIS.
2 Next, this is in general, as I said in
3 general the flow is from the Birds Hill aquifer
4 down into the carbonate aquifer, and there's up,
5 typically there's upwelling when there's not a
6 flood. When there's a flood, it can get to a
7 level which is higher than the groundwater in some
8 areas, but not higher than the East St. Paul
9 wells. Those are up quite high and they are well
10 above even the flood level, so there's no
11 potential to travel that way during the flood.
12 Next slide. Okay. Yeah, those are
13 out of the EIS figures from yesterday, I'm trying
14 to remember what they are. Yeah, figure 5.43,
15 figure 5.41 for the map, general map, and then I
16 focused in on the areas where the modelling was.
17 Okay. This is a cross section at
18 Dunning Road from the KGS report, appendix P.
19 It's also in the EIS figure 5.4-8. What this
20 shows is the expected situation and the effect of
21 the project. I'll go through these two. This is
22 the flood level for '97, so this is at the peak of
23 the flood. What they did was model the flood as
24 it goes through the floodway, and they calibrated
25 this. There is wells located here. I won't get
00732
1 into the details of where all of the wells are,
2 KGS can do that, but there is wells located and I
3 think I had one sample out of there that shows
4 what a calibration is.
5 So what they do is they take samples
6 of materials in this area, core samples, this is a
7 silty till, the carbonate aquifer is down below
8 here. There is some other clay on these other
9 sides. And this area after the flood, this sort
10 of yellowish area had intruded into the till as
11 far as that, which is about a metre, a bit more
12 than a metre. This is what the expected case is.
13 This water then, after the flood, the
14 normal upwelling seepage from the carbonate
15 aquifer upward into the floodway occurs, and
16 within a year this is all recaptured.
17 By widening the floodway, that's the
18 dashed lines in the red here, you don't cause any
19 greater vertical intrusion. This is one of the
20 other benefits of not deepening. If deepening, of
21 course, we would be moving, taking some over and
22 moving a little closer towards the carbonate
23 aquifer. By widening we don't cause any more
24 vertical intrusion, just a bit more on the sides
25 here.
00733
1 I just wanted to talk a little bit
2 more about the calibration. Next slide is that.
3 This is a little blurred, but this is out of the
4 appendix P -- appendix P, annex B I think, figure
5 B-3, annex B of the appendix 3 report. What this
6 basically shows is what calibration is, in one
7 sense, and then the groundwater flows. And this
8 shows that what they do is, during the period of
9 the flood, so you have records of water levels at
10 these wells near this location and they -- okay, I
11 just read this, this morning, but this is -- what
12 they have shown is well data, and then they show
13 the model superimposed on top of that. And it's
14 very, very close in each location here. There is
15 a little bit of a separation between what is
16 predicted from the model and what was monitored
17 during the time.
18 MR. WEBSTER: So behind the big red
19 hump line there, which is made up of a series of
20 points, is that right?
21 MR. MORGAN: Yes.
22 MR. WEBSTER: There is a blue model
23 line that sort of peeks over the top there?
24 MR. MORGAN: Yes.
25 MR. WEBSTER: It's a little difficult
00734
1 to see that.
2 MR. MORGAN: Yes, it is a little bit
3 difficult to see it there.
4 MR. WEBSTER: In fact, it coincides so
5 closely.
6 MR. MORGAN: This one is a little bit,
7 this one they separate slightly here, there's
8 little round circles and there is bigger sort of
9 diamonds, and that is the separation of -- you
10 know, that's a very accurate, very close
11 calibration, very tight calibration.
12 MR. WEBSTER: So, in fact, your model
13 in this case produces some results that we can
14 have some confidence in?
15 MR. MORGAN: Yes, the KGS model. I
16 said I have reviewed it, they did the modelling
17 and I reviewed it. And this information is all
18 available in the reports. It gives us confidence
19 that modelling done well, there's enough
20 information, and we have confidence that this
21 model can then be used to predict situations in
22 the future.
23 MR. WEBSTER: I don't want to belabour
24 the thing, but since we stumbled over this at the
25 beginning of our deliberations this week, it seems
00735
1 important to follow this through to some kind of
2 conclusion. And that leads us then back to the
3 question of monitoring.
4 Have you a way of monitoring to make
5 sure that after a flood event you can tell
6 whether, in fact, there's been intrusion into
7 important water bearing strata, under the
8 floodway, there's been intrusion of floodway water
9 into that area? I'm thinking bacteriological
10 contamination when I say this. But when you
11 sample water, you sample water for whatever you're
12 going to use it for.
13 MR. PETERSON: Peterson speaking. In
14 section 12 of the supplementary filing we outlined
15 a couple of things. One would be the
16 environmental protection plans that would be in
17 place during construction, and the other was
18 monitoring and follow-up plans will be developed.
19 In that is a section on groundwater. It's only a
20 paragraph because that's -- what we're outlining
21 is what we will do.
22 There will be a monitoring follow-up
23 plan developed that will designate the monitoring
24 well network, where they will be, what they will
25 be sampled for, the frequency of sampling, and
00736
1 basically outline a monitoring plan. That plan
2 has not yet been developed. And what we have
3 committed to do would be to have that plan in
4 place and approved by the regulatory agencies.
5 MR. WEBSTER: I think one of the
6 things that we are sensitive to is that things in
7 the future need to be, we need to have some
8 confidence that they are actually going to happen.
9 Not that I don't trust you, I'm simply indicating
10 that we need to recommend something that is
11 specific, rather than a general idea -- rather
12 than a general idea that it's going to happen
13 sometime.
14 MR. PETERSON: The Commission is
15 hearing the evidence on this project, and the
16 purpose of this hearing is for the Commission to
17 make recommendations to the decision makers. So
18 if that is an item that the Commission feels
19 strongly about, they could make such a
20 recommendation that would say that we not only
21 propose to do this, but we actually do it.
22 MR. MORGAN: Actually, in the EIS,
23 page 5-28, our recommendation as accepted by the
24 Floodway Authority says,
25 "Monitoring of groundwater quality in
00737
1 the western side of the floodway
2 should be done following a large flood
3 to verify movement in effect of
4 surface water intrusion."
5 MR. WEBSTER: Yes.
6 MR. MORGAN: So that's a commitment
7 there.
8 MR. WEBSTER: Yes. I guess I am
9 wanting to make sure that we decide how many
10 monitoring wells and where they should be placed
11 and that sort of thing, so that what's put in
12 place in fact does the job you need to do.
13 MR. MORGAN: I will explain a little
14 bit more about how the -- can you flip forward two
15 slides? This is the -- I want to make this very
16 clear what sensitivity analysis is, because it's
17 in the EIS, it is in the drawings, so people
18 flipping them open don't get overly concerned.
19 What is done is a sensitivity
20 analysis. And in this case, what is assumed is
21 this area is not silty till, as it is, it's a
22 hundred orders of magnitude more permeable -- not
23 hundred orders of magnitude, hundred times more
24 permeable, two orders of magnitude. So it's
25 basically saying simply, well, if we replace this
00738
1 with sand, what would happen?
2 This tells you sort of where things
3 could go if you were, you know, if there was --
4 this is sort of a potential thing, it's not
5 likely. And a lot of people will talk about,
6 you'll see in submissions by experts from
7 participants, they talk about there's a potential
8 for this, there's a potential for that, did you
9 look at this? Yes, it was looked at. That is
10 what sensitivity analysis is.
11 Potential is not expected. Expected
12 is what we evaluate when we do the assessment.
13 Potential is what we use to determine where should
14 we be doing additional monitoring in order to
15 ensure that, you know, in order to catch these
16 unanticipated events in the future, if they are,
17 you know -- that is what sensitivity analysis is
18 used for.
19 MR. WEBSTER: All right. What I
20 understood this diagram to show was that even
21 under these circumstances, to a large extent, the
22 infiltration is largely self-correcting, although
23 it's not entirely self-correcting.
24 MR. MORGAN: No, some of it still
25 potentially could move to the west. Although even
00739
1 in this unrepresented state, it takes -- at the
2 locations I think it varied from half a year to
3 ten years to get to the right-of-way. And so
4 that's under this unrepresented condition of ten
5 to a hundred times faster flow than we really
6 think could be happening.
7 MR. WEBSTER: So understanding that
8 the floodway in its expanded state would cause
9 infiltration that is self-correcting, almost
10 certainly, where would you like there to be
11 monitoring wells to be able to demonstrate that
12 the groundwater is not affected adjacent to the
13 floodway?
14 MR. MORGAN: In these locations where
15 there was already -- well, these locations that
16 when we did the sensitivity analysis showed that
17 the, you know, it's coming out, potentially coming
18 towards the west. These are the areas where
19 you'll be putting monitoring, like Dunning Road,
20 at Springhill, Oasis Road to the west, that says
21 at the CPR.
22 MR. WEBSTER: Because of the
23 tendency --
24 MR. MORGAN: We identified a lot of
25 those in P, a lot of those areas. As Mr. Smith
00740
1 said, as they come along and there's more
2 investigation and understanding, you'll see where
3 there's potential for a little bit lower
4 permeability or higher permeability, and that's
5 where you'd want to have monitoring wells.
6 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you very much.
7 MR. REMPEL: Dr. Webster, you
8 mentioned raw sewage entering the floodway. There
9 has been discussion over that earlier. Would you
10 like us to expand a bit on that event that led to
11 that publicity about that concern?
12 MR. WEBSTER: I think that would be
13 helpful, yes.
14 MR. REMPEL: Mr. McNeil can provide
15 some explanation there?
16 MR. MCNEIL: What occurred in November
17 of 2004 was discharge of raw sewage, combined with
18 storm water from the Transcona/Kildare land
19 drainage trunk sewer. The sewer is a land
20 drainage or a storm sewer, it is designed to take
21 the storm water runoff, snow melt runoff from the
22 entire Transcona area and discharge it into the
23 floodway, which is normally the case.
24 However, in November of 2004, the raw
25 sewage got into the storm system by way of cross
00741
1 connections between the sanitary or wastewater
2 sewer system and the storm system. It is standard
3 practice in the industry in North America with the
4 two pipe system to have these cross connection to
5 prevent basement flooding, as well as risk to
6 public health if raw sewage should get back into
7 the basements, when there are incidences.
8 In this case, the city, when the city
9 was alerted -- MFA was also alerted about the
10 incident -- but when the city first heard about
11 the incident from the Public Health Department,
12 which was informed of the incident from one of the
13 participant's engineering consultants that was
14 doing testing out in the floodway of the surface
15 water, the city reacted immediately. They sent
16 out people and they investigated to find out where
17 these cross connections, or where these cross
18 connections were overflowing, and then determined
19 that there were three locations that had grease
20 buildup in the sanitary sewer, which then backed
21 up the sanitary sewer and overflowed into the
22 storm sewer.
23 The city has carried on with their
24 monitoring, and they are still doing monitoring
25 today because they are still getting at that
00742
1 outflow fecal coliform levels that shouldn't be
2 there, substantially reduced from November, but
3 still having a problem, they are still
4 investigating.
5 I guess the only other thing is that
6 the reason that there was significant land
7 drainage being discharged into the floodway at
8 that time was that they were draining a storm
9 water retention basin that is used for storage and
10 for attenuating summer discharges and spring
11 runoff events. In advance of the consideration
12 that there may be a significant spring runoff
13 event in the city this year, they are discharging
14 from that pond. That could also be the source of
15 some of the contaminants.
16 So that was the situation. It's
17 typical in any of these storm and sanitary systems
18 to have these cross connections to prevent
19 basement flooding backup and risk to public
20 health, but not normal.
21 MR. WEBSTER: What you're implying
22 then is this was an unusual occurrence?
23 MR. MCNEIL: It's an infrequent
24 occurrence, and the project itself has no effect
25 on whether those occur or not.
00743
1 MR. WEBSTER: Similarly, there was a
2 referral at that same time to possible
3 infiltration into the floodway from the east, from
4 the area just south of Birds Hill, I think it was,
5 into the floodway. Is that also an unusual
6 occurrence, or is it treated sewage? What is it
7 that --
8 MR. MCNEIL: I'm sorry, Dr Webster, I
9 don't know what incident --
10 MR. WEBSTER: There was a mention, it
11 was outside of the hearing, outside of the hearing
12 context, but there was an indication of concern by
13 local residents of inflow into the floodway from
14 that lagoon area just south of Dunning Road.
15 MR. MCNEIL: Oh, you're talking about
16 the lagoon that services the trailer park adjacent
17 to Birds Hill Park?
18 MR. WEBSTER: That's right.
19 MR. MORGAN: I don't think there was
20 any unusual incident. It was just that when I was
21 on the tour with Mr. Jonasson, he just pointed out
22 that there was a lagoon discharging into the
23 floodway.
24 MR. WEBSTER: That is treated, that
25 is --
00744
1 MR. MORGAN: Yeah, a lagoon is
2 treated.
3 MR. WEBSTER: -- in the normal way
4 when these things are discharged, the water goes
5 into a water course, that is not raw sewage.
6 MR. MORGAN: No.
7 MR. MCNEIL: And they would have a
8 licence for that facility.
9 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Smith would like to
10 make one more comment on monitoring, if you
11 please.
12 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, I'd just
13 like to clarify. Appendix O of the preliminary
14 engineering report includes a compilation of all
15 of the investigation works done both from a
16 geotechnical and the groundwater perspective, and
17 we would quite often test for parameters to help
18 both ends.
19 Now, in addition to that there is
20 several other appendices. I can read them out
21 just quickly here; appendix G, focus on the
22 channel; appendix J, on the bridge investigations;
23 K was test excavations along the channel; and M
24 was groundwater. In addition, we had a
25 supplementary report on Oasis Road.
00745
1 And just to sum up that work, in
2 total, just in this program in the last couple of
3 years, we've had about 338 holes, out of those 83
4 had hydrometer analysis, which tells you the grain
5 size in the small end fraction, the clay silt
6 size, as well as clay content on another 143. And
7 the reason I mentioned that is, it gave us a very
8 high confidence level in the till materials, and
9 particularly from Highway 59 north up to Lockport,
10 as the representative material there was
11 consistently 40 to 60 per cent clay silt content,
12 which in fact would classify as a clay, a low
13 plasticity clay, rather than we typically have
14 referred to this as a silt till. So just so you
15 can appreciate it is a relatively low permeability
16 material.
17 And notwithstanding that, certainly we
18 recognize there's a potential for local isolated
19 pockets of more permeable sandy or siltier
20 materials. And certainly that's, as Mr. Morgan
21 has indicated, the non-representative case where
22 we still have to be prepared for that. But
23 that's --
24 MR. WEBSTER: I'd like to ask a few
25 more questions on this area.
00746
1 In the construction phase, you have an
2 environmental protection plan that you are putting
3 in place. Is sampling for bacteriological and
4 contaminants of concern being considered for that
5 period during construction? Is that being, is
6 that something that you would extend -- first of
7 all, are you planning to do it during the
8 construction phase, which is the time during which
9 you may have enhanced possibility of
10 contamination?
11 MR. PETERSON: Yes, Dr. Webster, that
12 is part of the -- we are considering the
13 parameters right now, which of the bacteriological
14 parameters we will be looking for, we will be just
15 looking at total coliform, fecal coliform, e.coli,
16 which are the chemicals, which are the nutrients,
17 which are the pesticides. So we're in that
18 process right now in our spare time working on
19 those programs.
20 MR. WEBSTER: And would that program
21 be carried on after the construction period?
22 MR. PETERSON: They are broken up into
23 two parts. One is the construction environmental
24 protection plan, and then the other part is the
25 ongoing long-term monitoring and follow up plan.
00747
1 Right now we're focusing on the construction
2 phase, but we're also in that thinking what
3 information will be useful in the long-term and
4 what information will be carried over. So they
5 will be submitted as two separate plans but the
6 thinking will be linked.
7 MR. WEBSTER: It's possible you may
8 install additional monitoring wells during
9 construction to make sure that things are going
10 the way you want them to go; is that correct?
11 MR. PETERSON: Yes. We'll be working
12 with the technical advisors. And that is one of
13 the reasons why this process isn't speeding up a
14 little bit, because we have to work out those
15 administrative things, like contracts and stuff
16 like that. So that's why we're at that phase now.
17 We had indicated earlier that we will be doing
18 that work a little later, but we're doing it right
19 now for administrative reasons. So, you know,
20 it's all going to be laid out.
21 At what we have committed as both
22 would be -- both plans would be submitted to the
23 regulators for approval before implementing them.
24 The construction plans we said would be approved
25 before we start construction.
00748
1 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. Backing away to a
2 slightly more generalized question, but
3 nevertheless an important one. Because the
4 floodway, in fact, extracts water from an aquifer,
5 because it's currently not licenced, but it's
6 anticipated it is likely to be licenced in the
7 course of the process we're going through, has the
8 groundwater discharge to the floodway been the
9 subject of licencing? Generally speaking this is
10 done in other jurisdictions. Have you in fact
11 addressed that issue?
12 MR. PETERSON: I think one thing we
13 would have to say is that the floodway does not
14 extract water, it accidentally intercepts water.
15 It's not our purpose to do that.
16 In the supplementary, in one of the
17 responses, and I can't remember if it's in the
18 information requests or in the supplementary
19 filing, there was a question about that, whether
20 or not a water rights authorization was required,
21 and Water Stewardship I believe indicated that
22 they were not required.
23 MR. WEBSTER: As I say, it's a
24 practice in other jurisdictions, I understand, for
25 that to be a licenced water, not exactly use, but
00749
1 certainly it represents an exploitation of a water
2 resource to allow it to drain away under those
3 circumstances.
4 MR. PETERSON: Again, we're not
5 licensing authority. Manitoba Water Stewardship,
6 there is a Water Rights Act that says when you
7 need licences and when you don't. For example,
8 they said we would need licence permits or
9 authorizations in order to dewater during the
10 construction of the bridges, so we will be making
11 those applications.
12 We just had a response called up and
13 it indicates that under the Water Rights Act in
14 Manitoba there isn't a requirement for licensing
15 of the floodway structure -- oh, sorry, it's in
16 response to the three rural municipalities and
17 it's information response number 4A.
18 MR. WEBSTER: Okay.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Motheral.
20 MR. MOTHERAL: Yes, as you can see --
21 to the authority -- this is a huge, huge issue for
22 the municipalities, the issue of groundwater.
23 It's in pretty well every one of their
24 presentation, and you will probably hear more
25 about this yet.
00750
1 I think, I believe there is a need to
2 demonstrate that there is a comfort level that the
3 water will not be affected, and if so, it needs to
4 be mitigated in some ways. So it is just that
5 it's a very, very important issue to the
6 surrounding municipalities.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: On that moment I think
8 we'll take a break for 15 minutes, so please come
9 back at quarter to 11:00. Immediately after the
10 break, the first item of business will be a
11 presentation by Mr. Robert Millman of Grande
12 Pointe, and that will be 10 or 15 minutes and then
13 we'll get back into cross-examining the proponent.
14
15 (Proceedings adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
16 and reconvened at 10:50 a.m.)
17
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we come back to
19 order. Mr. Robert Millman, if you could take the
20 seat at the front of the table, please? The
21 proponent panel can stay in the general area until
22 Mr. Millman is concluded, right at the first
23 chairs at the end of the table.
24 Would you please state your name for
25 the record?
00751
1 MR. MILLMAN: Robert Millman.
2
3 (ROBERT MILLMAN: SWORN)
4
5 MR. MILLMAN: Good morning, Mr.
6 Chairman, members of the Clean Environment
7 Commission, other distinguished representatives
8 and stakeholders. My name is Bob Millman. I live
9 at 2124 Southside Road in the RM of Ritchot. My
10 home is located on the south side of the road
11 approximately 500 yards east of the newly
12 constructed Seine River diversion.
13 And if I could just direct the members
14 of the Commission, I have included a rough map of
15 my location, four pages beyond the first page so
16 you can see where I am.
17 I'm here today to present my concerns
18 about the potential for my area and those areas
19 further east becoming a basin which could
20 periodically flood with polluted water from the
21 Red River Floodway, as a direct result of the
22 construction of the Seine River Diversion and the
23 proposed gapping of the south wall of the floodway
24 embankment around its drop structure.
25 I will start by giving a little
00752
1 history as to why I'm here today. I moved into my
2 home in '92, and in '97 I successfully protected
3 it from flooding by building a four to four and a
4 half foot dyke. The flood waters that engulfed my
5 area came from the west, crossing over Highway 59
6 in an easterly direction.
7 The Grande Pointe Dyke and Seine River
8 Diversion were subsequently constructed, and I was
9 lead to believe at the time that they would afford
10 me a good level of protection from future
11 flooding. However, after personally observing the
12 water levels in the diversion and floodway in the
13 spring of 2004, I became concerned about the
14 potential of that diversion to flow backwards and
15 flood the area east of it.
16 My concerns were well founded, I
17 learned, after making inquiries with the Water
18 Stewardship branch and receiving a copy of the
19 Acres office memorandum, dated February 15, 2002,
20 (Addendum One). I was shocked at what I read and
21 was in disbelief that this information had been
22 known by government and had not been widely
23 shared. Had I known this information when the
24 window of opportunity for flood proofing existed,
25 I would have followed through with my initial
00753
1 application.
2 My subsequent pursuit of answers to my
3 questions and concerns has been very frustrating
4 since that time. I have raised my concerns, both
5 privately and in writing, as a concerned citizen
6 with the Floodway Expansion Authority and publicly
7 as a participant in an environmental impact study
8 session. So far I believe my concerns have fallen
9 on deaf ears.
10 My belief that the Seine River
11 Diversion has the potential for causing flooding
12 in the area east of Grande Pointe seems to be well
13 accepted as factual. (Addendum 1 - Acres Office
14 Memorandum and addendum 3 - letter from the
15 Floodway Expansion Authority.) Regrettably that
16 seems to be the only point where I have found
17 agreement with the Water Stewardship branch or the
18 Floodway Expansion Authority, that this part of
19 Grande Pointe and areas further east can be
20 flooded by polluted Red River water flowing in a
21 southerly direction out of the floodway, and
22 spilling over the banks of the diversion or Seine
23 River, periodically and predictably, is simply
24 unacceptable to me and others who would be
25 negatively impacted.
00754
1 The matter of fact manner of
2 presentation of this fact by the Floodway
3 Expansion Authority communicates no concern about
4 it whatsoever. In fact, the tone seems somewhat
5 self-congratulatory and invitational of gratitude
6 for the improvement to be realized over the 1997
7 flood levels.
8 At no time during several meetings
9 that I have attended, nor in conversations or
10 communications that I have had with authorities,
11 has anyone expressed any concern for the
12 environment in our area as a result of periodic
13 flooding. The underlying premise of the Acres
14 memorandum and letter from the Floodway Expansion
15 Authority is that the area will be better off than
16 it was in 1997, as if the 1997 flood peak was
17 natural.
18 I believe the flood levels experienced
19 in 1997 in the Grande Pointe area and points
20 further east were made artificially high by the
21 timing and/or rate at which the flood gates were
22 raised, by the inadequacy of the floodway entrance
23 to accommodate the abundance of flood water, and
24 by the earthen plugs placed in the ditch at the
25 floodway bridge which prevented water from flowing
00755
1 out of Grande Pointe and into the floodway.
2 The premise of the Acres memorandum
3 and of the Floodway Expansion Authority seems to
4 be that the 1997 peak levels were natural, and we
5 have the benefit of improvements already made and
6 will continue to benefit when the expansion is
7 completed.
8 The improvements already made, as I
9 understand it, are largely attributable to the
10 notching which has taken place on the southern
11 embankment of the floodway between St. Mary's Road
12 and Highway 59. While I don't lack appreciation
13 for the value of this improvement, for those of us
14 living east of the Seine River Diversion it is
15 hard to get excited about it when flood waters
16 have now been provided a channel to spill out into
17 our area. We would have enjoyed the same level of
18 complete protection as Grande Pointe within the
19 ring dyke, 1997 level plus two feet, had the Seine
20 River diversion not been constructed.
21 The improved situation theme that runs
22 through the correspondence that I have received
23 from the Floodway Expansion Authority, I first
24 found perplexingly persuasive. However, realizing
25 that polluted Red River floodwater can flood my
00756
1 area periodically and predictably quickly
2 extinguishes any sense of good fortune or
3 gratitude. I believe that flooding in the areas
4 east of the diversion will occur periodically and
5 will be damaging to our environment and costly to
6 the homeowners and businesses. The mere existence
7 of the diversion and its drop structure guarantees
8 this.
9 I have the same protection as those
10 inside the Grande Pointe ring dyke from
11 floodwaters coming from the west and the south,
12 but no protection from waters coming from the
13 north through the diversion.
14 I want to draw the attention of the
15 Commission to several other points before closing.
16 In the Acres memorandum all of the options for
17 preventing flooding caused by the diversion appear
18 to have been completely abandoned.
19 Secondly, the improved situation theme
20 can also be noted in the draft minutes of an
21 environmental impact study meeting on
22 September 13, 2004, addendum 4.
23 Lastly, to date, in spite of my
24 inquiries and requests, no authority has committed
25 to paying compensation for losses caused by
00757
1 flooding due to the creation of the Seine River
2 diversion, with its potential to flood us
3 unnaturally with Red River waters flowing from the
4 north.
5 This potential for flooding has not
6 been completely publicized to all of those who
7 would be directly affected, and there have been no
8 offers to re-open a flood-proofing program. I
9 find these omissions especially concerning given
10 the jeopardy in which the diversion's existence is
11 putting us.
12 Lastly, two questions I would like to
13 leave the Commission with to further focus your
14 attention. What are the plans for checking wells
15 east of the diversion, and how would the water
16 quality of our wells and aquifer be restored if
17 they were negatively impacted by periodic
18 flooding? But more importantly and generally,
19 what is the history of flooding in the RM of
20 Ritchot prior to the construction of the floodway,
21 and what moral and ethical issues does that
22 history raise?
23 On behalf of all of us living east of
24 the Seine River Diversion, I would like to thank
25 all members of this Commission for their time and
00758
1 attention to the matters that I have raised. I
2 place my trust in this Commission, this
3 Commission's intent to squarely address these
4 critical environmental issues. Thank you very
5 much.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Millman.
7 Questions for clarification at this time? Mr.
8 Webster.
9 MR. WEBSTER: Mr. Millman, your use of
10 the name Seine River Diversion raises in my mind
11 some concerns, since I believe that this is a
12 second Seine River Diversion, is it not? Is there
13 not also another Seine River Diversion?
14 MR. MILLMAN: I believe there is. I'm
15 talking about the one that parallels Highway 59
16 just south of the floodway bridge.
17 MR. WEBSTER: And this flows --
18 MR. MILLMAN: Newly constructed.
19 MR. WEBSTER: This does not flow in a
20 westerly direction into the Red River, but flows
21 in a northerly direction into the flood --
22 MR. MILLMAN: It flows in a northerly
23 direction, in a desirable way under normal
24 circumstances, preventing an excess of water going
25 into Grande Pointe which is now ring dyked. In
00759
1 adverse conditions, it is known to flow backwards.
2 And part of my concern is that that information
3 has sat with the Government for a few years. And
4 I was not advised of this, nor my -- it was only
5 through my own investigation this spring and the
6 concerns that I observed that I pursued it -- that
7 I received the Acres memo, which is addendum
8 number 1, which clearly states that back in 2002,
9 that it can and will flow backwards under certain
10 circumstances.
11 MR. WEBSTER: Just a couple of further
12 points of clarification. Your map is helpful. I
13 would like, though, for us to understand where the
14 Grande Pointe dyke surrounding the community is
15 situated. Now, part of it is along Highway 59; is
16 that right?
17 MR. MILLMAN: Yes.
18 MR. WEBSTER: Where does it go from
19 there?
20 MR. MILLMAN: I believe it is Mondor
21 Road that continues that dyke.
22 MR. WEBSTER: Is it to the west of
23 Highway 59?
24 MR. MILLMAN: It is, it goes to the
25 west of Highway 59 and around.
00760
1 MR. WEBSTER: And the northern
2 boundary of it, is it along the floodway?
3 MR. MILLMAN: Yes.
4 MR. WEBSTER: Is the Seine River
5 itself on the outside of that dyke, or does it
6 flow through the dyke area?
7 MR. MILLMAN: The Seine River goes
8 into Grande Pointe, and the part that goes in is
9 within the ring dyke. The diversion, as shown on
10 the little map that I sketched, is outside of the
11 ring dyke.
12 MR. WEBSTER: So that under flood
13 conditions, is the Seine River in its natural
14 channel somehow blocked?
15 MR. MILLMAN: Can you repeat your
16 question, please?
17 MR. WEBSTER: Under flood conditions,
18 is the Seine River in its natural channel which
19 flows through Grande Pointe, is that blocked?
20 MR. MILLMAN: It goes under Highway 59
21 in culverts. I can't tell you whether there are
22 controls on those culverts or not. A lot of the
23 water last spring, I can tell you, was directed
24 down the Seine River diversion, as you see it on
25 the sketch of that map.
00761
1 MR. WEBSTER: So there is some kind of
2 a structure that is either --
3 MR. MILLMAN: A drop structure.
4 MR. WEBSTER: That is associated with
5 its passage under Highway 59 and the flow, the
6 excess flow goes down the diversion?
7 MR. MILLMAN: Yes, and there is a drop
8 structure at the end of the diversion where it
9 enters the floodway. This is detailed very
10 carefully by Acres in their memorandum which is
11 addendum one.
12 MR. WEBSTER: Okay. And the last
13 question then is, the Seine River diversion that
14 you are talking about was installed in 2003 or
15 2004?
16 MR. MILLMAN: I believe it was 2002 or
17 2003. There are many people here that know.
18 MR. WEBSTER: It has only been present
19 for a couple of years?
20 MR. MILLMAN: Correct.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Millman.
22 MS. JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, if we
23 could add Mr. Millman's presentation as exhibit
24 47.
25
00762
1 (EXHIBIT 47: Presentation by Robert
2 Millman)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we have the
4 floodway team back up?
5 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, would you like
6 an explanation of the situation surrounding
7 Mr. Millman's property?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: How did you guess?
9 MR. MCNEIL: Just give me a minute to
10 call up the information.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Perhaps not only
12 Mr. Millman's specific property, but just the
13 general area and the general issue of this
14 diversion?
15 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, that was my plan.
16 Okay, Mr. Chair, I'm going to call up
17 a diagram so I can explain the situation in the
18 Grande Pointe and Seine River diversion area.
19 So let me just explain this diagram.
20 This is from appendix H of the preliminary
21 engineering reports, and it is the location plan
22 figure 2-1. It is an area map. It shows the
23 floodway pretty much in the centre of the screen
24 starting at the Red River, and then moving in the
25 northeasterly direction. This is the Seine River
00763
1 here. This white line is Highway 59, Southside
2 Road is either this one or this one, I think it is
3 this one, which Mr. Millman lives on. And in 2001
4 and 2002, the Grande Pointe dyke was complete.
5 And that was one of the community ring dykes that
6 was undertaken under the Canada/Manitoba/Red River
7 Valley Flood Protection Program. And it was built
8 generally to 1997 plus two, although a couple of
9 the legs were raised because of concerns over
10 wind.
11 Here is the south embankment of the
12 floodway, and the east leg of the Grande Pointe
13 dyke is Highway 59 down to Mondor Road, which I
14 think is right here. And then -- sorry, in the
15 vicinity of the Seine River is still Highway 59
16 and then Mondor Road, and then the dyke follows
17 the CPR Emerson subdivision to the north as the
18 west leg of the dyke, and at some point crosses
19 over the rail line, and then runs up north towards
20 the south embankment of the floodway, somewhere
21 west of Hallama Drive here.
22 Now that this is a dyked community,
23 there could be a situation when the Seine River
24 peaks in a spring runoff scenario that it could
25 flood the dyke community from within. So a gated
00764
1 control structure was put on the Seine River
2 underneath Highway 59, and a diversion channel was
3 constructed all along Highway 59 on its east side
4 from the Seine River going north, and then with a
5 drop structure at the floodway in the south
6 embankment.
7 Mr. Millman's concern is that when the
8 floodway is at a certain peak elevation, that
9 water will back up and reach, back up in the ditch
10 system that leads -- sorry, let me add that the
11 ditches that used to flow to the Seine River or to
12 the Highway 59 ditch were intercepted by the new
13 diversion channel. So the ditch along this road
14 and the Southside Road, and Prairie Grove Road up
15 here, now discharge into, or were intercepted by
16 that Seine River Diversion channel leading to the
17 floodway.
18 So now what I want to show you is a
19 table, let me just find it, which summarizes the
20 situation in this area. And this is relating to
21 water levels right at the drop structure of the
22 Seine River Diversion. This is table 6-1 in
23 appendix H. So these elevations relate to the
24 water level on the prairie immediately upstream of
25 the drop structure for the Seine River Diversion.
00765
1 So this would be on the south side of the floodway
2 embankment on the prairie.
3 At the time of the 1997 flood, and I
4 think I mentioned this in my presentation, the '97
5 flood did spill over into the highway -- east of
6 the Highway 59 area, and the peak water level was
7 771.9. And that would be very similar to the
8 water level at the gentleman's residence, and at a
9 depth on the prairie, or a depth in his yard of
10 approximately 4.4 feet. And he actually confirmed
11 that in public consultation when we dug up his
12 information about ground elevation and whatnot.
13 Now, the current situation with the
14 Grande Pointe dyke in place and the existing
15 floodway channel, and the two east embankment
16 gaps, and with the Grande Pointe drop structure,
17 because of the more efficient entrance of water
18 into the floodway, if we had a repeat of 1997 with
19 all of these gaps, even though we have the same
20 channel, then the water level would be 769.0 at
21 his residence, or one and a half feet above the
22 landscape, above the ground. And after the
23 floodway is complete, the capacity of the floodway
24 will improve that situation again and, in fact, it
25 will be below prairie. We have indicated here
00766
1 that prairie at that structure is 767.5 feet above
2 sea level, and the water level in the floodway
3 backing up will be 765.5 for a 1997 flood.
4 Now, the Highway 59 is generally above
5 the 1997 level, even south of Grande Pointe.
6 There are, though, culvert openings through it.
7 So it acts partly as a dyke, there are culvert
8 openings so that the water would eventually get
9 through that area and get into the drainage
10 system. But the real benefit to his area
11 immediately east of Highway 59 is the new gaps
12 such that that water in the flood plain will get
13 more efficiently into the floodway and provide a
14 lower water level of almost 3 feet.
15 In the 700 year flood, and actually
16 for any flood bigger than 1997, you will start
17 seeing higher water levels in the floodway, of
18 course, but also on the landscape. And so a 700
19 year flood during the 1997 conditions would have
20 been 778.3. And then with the current changes in
21 the area, because of the gaps, it would drop by .3
22 of a foot. So 700 year flood definitely floods
23 over the top of Highway 59 and floods a wider area
24 further to the east. But with the gaps that drops
25 that elevation by .3 of a foot over the 1997
00767
1 situation. And then when the floodway is built,
2 there is a slight benefit again because of the
3 capacity of the floodway and because of the new
4 gap at the drop structure.
5 So there are instances, though,
6 between '97 -- well, actually, with a '97 flood up
7 to the 700 year flood that, yes, the floodway
8 elevation will be higher than the landscape, but
9 the flood level on the landscape from the overland
10 flooding from the Red River will always be higher.
11 And one of the other concerns that
12 they have is that, in this area, is that they
13 believe that they are going to see flooding from
14 the Seine River because of the diversion channel.
15 And I can't recall what the diversion channel,
16 what the event it was designed to. But we looked
17 at the records of the coincidence of the Seine
18 River peaking and the Red River peaking, and
19 although you can't say that will never happen,
20 typically what happens is the Seine River does
21 peak long before the Red River peaks, so it will
22 always be able to discharge into the floodway
23 before you saw the influence of the Red River
24 flooding overland and reaching that area. And
25 that's -- I will leave it at that.
00768
1 THE CHAIRMAN: How about his concern
2 about the diversion backing up, and that would
3 have nothing to do with the peak on the Seine,
4 that would be the peak on the Red, would it not?
5 MR. MCNEIL: Right, but it will always
6 be left then whatever water -- whatever flood
7 event creates the elevation in the floodway is
8 also creating overland flooding into his area, and
9 so although there will be water backing up into
10 that drainage system because it is below the
11 landscape, the water on the landscape will always
12 be higher, so that water will always be draining
13 to the floodway, the water that would affect his
14 property and other properties.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you for
16 that explanation, Mr. McNeil.
17 I think we will go back to Mr.
18 Webster, who has a few more questions on
19 groundwater issues. Following that I have a
20 handful of short snappers that hopefully will
21 conclude. Mr. Webster.
22 MR. WEBSTER: This question is one
23 that relates to municipal water supply wells, and
24 the question is: Is the Floodway Authority
25 planning to establish a well head sanitary
00769
1 protection zone around all municipal water supply
2 wells located in the areas adjacent to the
3 floodway?
4 MR. SMITH: Bert Smith, Dr. Webster.
5 I understand the question is basically well head
6 protection of municipal wells. I guess the prime
7 responsibility for that really lies with the
8 municipality. The protection of the well systems
9 are, obviously they are subject to a lot of
10 different possible sources of contamination. And
11 I guess the closest one to the floodway is the
12 four Oasis Road wells. Up gradient of the
13 floodway you have got an unconfined aquifer
14 situation with a lot of different potential
15 sources, whether it be septic fields or open
16 gravel pit activities by contractors.
17 So certainly it is important that the
18 municipality recognizes that, and I'm sure they
19 do, and they are testing their water regularly and
20 using appropriate measures to ensure that the
21 water is potable.
22 There is also this question of a
23 potential for infiltration of water from the
24 floodway to the wells -- and me just be clear --
25 you are wondering about what well head protection
00770
1 measures the Floodway Authority are considering
2 relative to the expansion project?
3 MR. WEBSTER: Yes. I think, again,
4 this comes under the category of making sure that
5 the floodway is effectively protecting itself,
6 that is the Authority is protecting itself by
7 making sure that the contamination likelihood from
8 other sources is minimized.
9 We have been through questions
10 relating to the likelihood of infiltration into
11 the aquifer from the floodway. This is a question
12 of protecting the well head from contamination so
13 that, in fact, difficulties are minimized,
14 difficulties of all sorts in terms of
15 contamination.
16 I guess I'm not necessarily implying
17 that the Floodway Authority must itself pay for
18 the well head sanitary protection zone, it may or
19 may not be the case that there is contribution
20 required, but the establishment of a protection
21 zone around the municipal wells is important to
22 make sure that those wells are not going to cause
23 you any problems.
24 MR. SMITH: Yes, I guess in that
25 regard certainly the Clean Environment Commission
00771
1 can recommend to the Municipality of East St. Paul
2 to undertake the appropriate measures. Quite
3 often on any well, certainly municipal wells as
4 well, the problem will start with the way the well
5 is finished, the details of grouting and sealing
6 at the surface, and in the immediate subsurface
7 around the annulus of the well, and to ensure that
8 there is no pathways for any surface contaminants
9 to get down into the well. And that is certainly
10 a very important consideration.
11 MR. WEBSTER: My point is, it is in
12 the interests of the Floodway Authority to ensure
13 that those wells are in top condition?
14 MR. SMITH: Certainly it is, I agree
15 with you. And again, that's not really the
16 Floodway Authority's place to be instructing the
17 municipality how to maintain their well, but we
18 would welcome any recommendations on the part of
19 the Clean Environment Commission to that end.
20 MR. WEBSTER: All right. Would you
21 provide information summarizing any incidents of
22 bacteriological and/or chemical impact on
23 groundwater users since the start of the floodway
24 operation?
25 I understand in your response number
00772
1 18 to CEC request for information that you have
2 indicated no impacts were recorded. I wondered if
3 you would provide information summarizing any
4 incidents that you are aware of in that period,
5 for the record?
6 MR. SMITH: We are not aware of any
7 data supporting contamination as a result of
8 floodway intrusion. The only incident that I'm
9 aware of is anecdotal, speaking to a resident when
10 we had an open house up in the Lockport area, a
11 well I guess on the west side of the floodway, one
12 resident indicated that she had noticed some
13 discolouring of the water for a short period
14 during the 1997 flood. And I had asked at the
15 time if any samples had been analysed, but
16 unfortunately there weren't. So I don't have any
17 specific data that you are referring to on
18 bacteriological.
19 MR. WEBSTER: Bacteriological and/or
20 chemical.
21 MR. SMITH: And/or chemical with
22 respect to any influences of floodway?
23 MR. WEBSTER: That's right, I'm
24 wondering if you have any monitoring records that
25 can be used in that sense?
00773
1 MR. SMITH: Well, the Provincial
2 Government has periodically monitored the wells
3 along the right-of-way during flood events, and
4 did some very, on a couple of occasions, fairly
5 rigorous sampling of the chemistry. I guess the
6 bottom line there is, there is some mixed data.
7 In some cases looking at the data you could say
8 there appears to be a change during a flood event
9 and that could be attributed to possible water
10 effects, however, those similar type of changes
11 have also been noted in the years where there was
12 no flood. So it is not a clear indication there.
13 MR. WEBSTER: Again, this looks as if
14 it indicates that the monitoring system needs to
15 be better than it has been along the floodway. Is
16 that correct?
17 MR. SMITH: Well, the monitoring on
18 those particular events certainly was good data.
19 I agree it would be prudent to increase the
20 frequency of monitoring and certainly add
21 additional wells along the floodway in sensitive
22 areas.
23 MR. WEBSTER: Finally then, is the
24 Floodway Authority actively looking at ways of
25 making sure that the monitoring system along the
00774
1 length of the floodway meets these kinds of needs
2 and criteria?
3 MR. SMITH: Yes, that's part of the --
4 the program prior to construction will be to
5 develop that monitoring program in conjunction
6 with the regulatory authorities, and certainly get
7 input from the public and the RMs in that regard.
8 We have had some discussions with individual
9 homeowners, some who are very close to the edge of
10 the floodway, and have indicated that we certainly
11 would want to add their homes to the base program
12 for ongoing monitoring of domestic wells, to try
13 and get a representative case.
14 The closest wells are probably in the
15 order of 300 metres west of the floodway at some
16 locations, and then there is other roads that are
17 stepped back half a kilometre or a kilometre back.
18 We are talking now in the section from Highway 59
19 north up to Lockport I think is the most sensitive
20 area.
21 MR. WEBSTER: Now, there have been
22 some concerns that we have been talking about in
23 the area of over the last hour and a half or so,
24 concerns of the rural municipalities adjacent to
25 the floodway. In the course of our deliberations
00775
1 it is possible that we might come up with the idea
2 that an independent review is required of some of
3 these concerns. It is a possibility. As a
4 possibility, would the Floodway Authority consider
5 participating in that kind of an exercise should
6 it be necessary, beyond what we are doing? Is
7 it -- would you be willing to take part in that
8 kind of review to help those folks?
9 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, we would.
10 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you.
11 MR. SMITH: And maybe add to that,
12 that regional modeling study by the province, that
13 would be considered in our part certainly as an
14 independent study.
15 MR. WEBSTER: Thank you.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Webster.
17 I have a handful of questions on about
18 three different areas, and I think they are
19 relatively quick and short. I would like to just
20 go back to the area that I was canvassing earlier
21 on the inlet structure, and a couple of questions.
22 I believe, and I think it might have been, I'm not
23 sure whose response, but somebody referred to, in
24 respect of the gate redundancy issue there was
25 reference to further study that was being done.
00776
1 And I think there might have been reference to an
2 expert panel that was looking at that. Has that
3 report been completed, or when will it be
4 completed?
5 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, we did have an
6 independent expert review of the inlet control
7 structure in the west dyke and the west embankment
8 of the east dyke that occurred last fall, and we
9 brought in experts with -- actually I will refer
10 to our response in the CEC information requests --
11 a response to CEC information request number 12E.
12 We had five independent expert consultants come in
13 with a workshop, they had long-term experience
14 with prairie farm rehabilitation administration of
15 the Federal Government, a retired director of dam
16 safety for B.C. Hydro and others. And they were
17 tasked with looking at three things, the possible
18 need for backup gates versus improved reliability,
19 the design criteria for wind related to freeboard
20 on the west dyke, and the flood stages at or near
21 the design stage at the inlet control structure
22 and the proposed invoking of emergency overflow
23 operations.
24 They have drafted a report, a summary
25 of the discussions that were held at that
00777
1 workshop. Actually, it was drafted by the lead
2 expert, and currently the other members of that
3 expert team are reviewing and providing their
4 comments to that document. So we are hoping to
5 get that in the next little while.
6 Basically they had already given us
7 some preliminary recommendations. And one of them
8 was that it was suggested by them that further
9 risk analysis, particularly related to the risk of
10 loss of life for moderate floods, should be done.
11 And that is what I was referring to earlier by the
12 risk of failure of the flood protection system for
13 floods between 75 years and 700 years with the
14 expanded floodway. And what has to happen first,
15 though, is the development of the evacuation, a
16 firm evacuation plan for Winnipeg should the
17 system fail, and then following that we can do the
18 emergency protection plan for the structures and
19 whatnot.
20 They have also suggested that we
21 refine the analysis of wind and wave setup on the
22 west dyke. They thought that there were some
23 refinements that could be made. We used a 2D
24 model, in fact the original analysis was done by
25 the Canadian Hydraulic Centre, and they've
00778
1 suggested that that model be refined further to
2 make some improvements on the west dyke design.
3 And that will be undertaken during the detailed
4 design process over the next couple of months.
5 And other things regarding gate reliability and
6 whatnot will likely come out of the report when it
7 is finalized.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. In response
9 to some of the questions I had about the dam
10 safety issues around the inlet structure, and I
11 think it was Mr. Smith who mentioned that there
12 had been a dam safety assessment done by SNC
13 Lavalin; is that correct?
14 Now, did that constitute a dam safety
15 review as set out in the guidelines of the
16 Canadian Dam Agency or the Canadian Dam
17 Association?
18 MR. CARSON: The objective was that
19 they would follow the general rules that were laid
20 down in the guidelines, yes.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
22 MR. MCNEIL: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I'm
23 asking Mr. Carson to add a couple of lines about
24 that.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: We welcome that.
00779
1 MR. CARSON: Yes, generally the theme
2 was to follow the Canadian Dam Association dam
3 safety guidelines. However, the floodway
4 structures are not in the normal sense of dams and
5 dykes that have been addressed by these
6 guidelines. And so it was somewhat difficult to
7 apply those guidelines to this floodway situation.
8 There were certainly some parts of the guidelines
9 that were directly applicable, such as required
10 safety factors, stability safety factors for
11 various conditions of retaining water, and they
12 were quite easy to apply. But there are other
13 parts of the guidelines that are more difficult to
14 relate directly to the floodway system.
15 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I would also
16 ask Mr. McMillan to speak for a moment about some
17 of the results that came directly out of that dam
18 safety analysis respecting the stability of the
19 control structure.
20 MR. MCMILLAN: Dave McMillan. The
21 results of the dam safety review are documented in
22 appendix C of the preliminary design studies. SNC
23 Lavalin found that the structures are extremely
24 stable and exceeded the minimum guidelines that
25 are outlined in the Canadian Dam Association dam
00780
1 safety guidelines.
2 For instance, for the sliding
3 stability, which is one of the key indicators,
4 they found a stability factor of 3 to 5 compared
5 to a minimum standard of 1.5, which would indicate
6 that the structures are extremely stable. And as
7 well they found the stresses, calculated stresses
8 in the rock, in the foundation that we were
9 talking about previously as really very low by a
10 factor of 3 or 4 lower than what the minimum
11 required stress would be. And in their
12 conclusions they identified no concerns at all
13 with the stability of the structures nor the
14 stresses in the foundation.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Now, you say that some
16 of the factors in the dam safety association
17 guidelines, the Canadian Dam Association
18 Guidelines don't apply to this structure, but I do
19 understand that they apply to any structure more
20 than two and a half metres high which contains
21 more than 30,000 cubic metres of water. And when
22 this structure is fully operating, it is certainly
23 containing a lot more water than that.
24 MR. CARSON: Yes, that is certainly
25 true. And I guess those portions of the
00781
1 guidelines are directly applicable. And I'm going
2 to try and think of an example of portions of the
3 guidelines that are not directly applicable.
4 Could we have a short huddle here?
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly.
6 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, we would like
7 an undertaking to come back to this with you.
8 There are some difficult concepts that we would
9 like to be able to explain properly with the
10 appropriate visuals, and we want to confer with
11 the author of appendix C.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Sure, we will welcome
13 that.
14 MR. MCNEIL: Can we come back first
15 thing Monday with that?
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Certainly. Changing
17 area, I have a few questions that I don't think
18 are terribly complicated, and it is just about
19 some of the effects immediately downstream and
20 also upstream of the inlet structure. And I would
21 like you to describe the operation of the floodway
22 inlet and the corresponding effects on water
23 levels in the river downstream of the inlet. And
24 particularly I would like to know if there is a
25 restriction applied to the rate of decline of the
00782
1 Red River level, both up and downstream of the
2 inlet, as the floodway is put into operation.
3 So, first, what effect does it have on
4 water levels downstream? And then what are the
5 limits on the --
6 MR. MCNEIL: Are you talking about
7 spring operation, Mr. Chair?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: I think any operation.
9 MR. MORGAN: By downstream you mean
10 downstream of the outlet?
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Of the inlet, just
12 immediately downstream of the inlet, what are the
13 effects on the water levels when the floodway is
14 put into operation? I'm looking at sort of bank
15 stability issues.
16 MR. MCNEIL: I guess I don't have a
17 hydrograph to explain this, you know, with the
18 rising limb of the hydrograph as the flood
19 develops and the gate operation, and the declining
20 side of the hydrograph. I do have something
21 from -- I guess in general terms on the rising
22 limb of the hydrograph, because of the gate
23 operation, the river level does rise upstream of
24 the inlet control structure a little faster than
25 it would under natural conditions, obviously
00783
1 because the operation of the gates.
2 When the gates are lowered, and this
3 applies to all operation of the gates, Manitoba
4 Water Stewardship attempts to mimic nature by
5 dropping the gates slowly and having the receding
6 limb of the hydrograph follow as close to what
7 nature would have provided if the gates didn't
8 exist.
9 We mentioned yesterday that in summer
10 operation it is built into the rule to try to
11 attempt to not lower the water levels more than
12 half a foot a day, less if possible. And that's
13 to mimic nature so that there is no influence one
14 way or the other by the gate operation, or impact
15 on what nature would do to the river bank is in
16 its natural state.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: I understand that on
18 June 11 last year there was a drop of six feet in
19 one day.
20 MR. MCNEIL: You would be referring to
21 the downstream side. When the gates are operated
22 for that -- and that's a non-spring event -- there
23 is an attempt to try to get the water down as
24 quickly as possible in anticipation of the rain
25 storm event. Although not preferable certainly,
00784
1 because of the potential impact to river banks in
2 the City of Winnipeg, it was felt that the
3 forecast rain storm was significant enough that
4 was it was worth that risk to lower more than --
5 the water level in the city more than that half a
6 foot a day. So that's what happened in that
7 situation.
8 So that's why, when the rule was
9 written, it was written around the basic premise
10 that you don't want to lower water levels
11 anywhere, upstream or downstream, more than half a
12 foot a day. And then you need this window, ten
13 day window, in order to do that if rain storms are
14 forecast for that situation.
15 In terms of the spring operation with
16 the raising of the gates, it is purely to follow
17 the rule 1 curve, whatever should occur in
18 response to a specific flood event.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you mentioned
20 probably yesterday that you have plans to conduct
21 engineering and geotechnical investigations to
22 look at river bank stabilization. Was that
23 correct?
24 MR. MCNEIL: More specifically it is
25 to look at the condition of the river banks over
00785
1 time, as they react to both natural and flood
2 events -- or sorry, operation events, and
3 determine whether or not human actions have any
4 difference on the river banks over and above state
5 of nature.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: And how much of the
7 river bank will you be surveying?
8 MR. MCNEIL: It won't be a continuous
9 surveillance, it will be a test hole and
10 monitoring program. And if I recall correctly, it
11 is approximately 30, up to 30 kilometres upstream
12 of the inlet structure and 30 kilometres
13 downstream.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: 30 kilometres
15 downstream would be pretty well right through the
16 city, wouldn't it?
17 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: And 30 kilometres
19 upstream, how far would that go?
20 MR. MCNEIL: At least to Ste. Agathe.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: And what objectives do
22 you have in that?
23 MR. MCNEIL: The objective is to
24 determine whether or not the operation has any
25 impact on river bank stability.
00786
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. A couple
2 of -- this is changing subjects quite a bit,
3 sorry, just one moment.
4 It has just been pointed out that in
5 rule 4 it actually talks about a rule curve of one
6 foot per day. It is a minor issue, but just --
7 except in circumstances of extreme urgency to
8 lower river levels more than one foot a day -- you
9 will not operate the floodway under this rule to
10 lower river levels more than one foot a day?
11 MR. MCNEIL: That is obviously
12 correct, and what was going by was no more than
13 one foot a day, but the objective was half a foot
14 a day. And that's where we got the ten days and
15 the five feet.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thanks. Mr. Webster
17 has one more issue, or one more question on
18 groundwater, and then I have a couple of general
19 big picture questions that might take us to our
20 lunch break.
21 MR. WEBSTER: My question has to do
22 with the other aspect of construction that might
23 have an impact on groundwater, and that is bridge
24 foundations. As you construct new bridges, I
25 would imagine that you would have to take the
00787
1 foundation down to bedrock. Could you address the
2 issue generally, and perhaps give us a specific
3 example or two as to how you tackle that problem
4 so that groundwater is not adversely affected over
5 the long term?
6 MR. MORGAN: I will just start and say
7 that that was noted in the EIS in the groundwater
8 section. There is, on page 520, figure 5.4, there
9 is discussion of what the effects could be and
10 what the mitigation would be in there. But I will
11 pass it on to Mr. Smith, he has a lot of
12 experience in the detail of how they go about
13 doing this.
14 MR. SMITH: Bert Smith here. I would
15 just like to clarify first that the original
16 floodway construction was done with, as we have
17 discussed, a significantly higher pressure. So
18 when they work to the foundations, they have water
19 heads in the order of 20 feet or more differential
20 to deal with. And the current situation, as we
21 have been discussing with the piezometric surface
22 now having dropped close to the floodway, there is
23 discharge into the floodway, so there is some up
24 gradient into the base of the floodway. But when
25 we proceed with these bridges, the differential
00788
1 head will be much less than what we have had to
2 deal with in the past. So it will be, the control
3 will be, I will say easier, but it won't be as
4 challenging or difficult.
5 Now, some of the bridges that we are
6 looking at, for example, the rail bridges in some
7 cases they are looking at steel H-piles, which the
8 steel H-piles will be driven down to refusal in
9 the till, whereas on the highway bridges they will
10 use concrete pre-cast piles.
11 Some of the thoughts we have had, for
12 the driven steel there will be less disturbance
13 for the foundation, but for the concrete piles a
14 portion of foundation will be -- we will drill an
15 initial open hole so you can put your pile caps
16 down, so that will be below surface.
17 The actual piles, we have had
18 discussion about possibly adding in tubes within
19 the concrete piles as grout ports. So when the
20 piles are driven to refusal, we will then be able
21 to pump grout in to infill any voids created and
22 protect against the potential for seepage coming
23 up around those piles.
24 In addition to that, however, the
25 groundwater construction dewatering program will
00789
1 be possibly required at four sites that we have
2 identified, and as Dr.Morgan has indicated, that's
3 in the EIS. And part of the next phase prior to
4 construction will be to do some initial testing
5 site specific at each of these sites, determine
6 how much pumping would be required on a local
7 basis in the vicinity of the -- right in the
8 floodway base where the piles will be installed
9 for the bridge supports. And that program will
10 identify then what the influence radius would be
11 around the bridge, and that will be part of the
12 program submitted for approvals to the regulatory
13 authorities to monitor that influence and to have
14 a mitigation program when that construction is
15 ongoing.
16 So I guess there is one other thing
17 that I could add. On the bridges that we are
18 going to decommission, the intent is, when those
19 piles are removed, is to address if there are
20 local seepage issues at piles, to address that
21 issue as well.
22 MR. WEBSTER: I think that's adequate.
23 MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, if I could
24 just add a point of clarification. In the
25 presentation before the break, Dr. Morgan had,
00790
1 when we were talking about the Oasis Road area and
2 the municipal wells, East St. Paul wells, had made
3 reference to the level being above the floodway.
4 That level, in fact, what he meant was the
5 piezometric level as monitored in a nearby
6 provincial well, J0006. The actual base of the
7 municipal wells as drilled goes down close to the
8 bedrock surface.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I have a
10 couple of questions that I will direct to Mr.
11 McNeil.
12 Given that you are here before these
13 hearings seeking, or asking us to recommend to the
14 minister that you be issued an environmental
15 license for this proposal, given that it is very
16 likely, or there is a very real possibility, if
17 not a likelihood, that we will recommend
18 conditions be attached to the license, I would
19 just like to know what resources the Floodway
20 Authority has in place to implement such
21 conditions? Do you have any environmental staff
22 employed by the Floodway Authority, and what
23 authority would they have to implement such
24 conditions?
25 MR. MCNEIL: I suppose it depends on
00791
1 the level of effort required by the conditions.
2 We do have three environmental people on staff,
3 and we have a staff of about 25 now in areas of
4 administrative operations, hydraulics,
5 transportation, environmental and finance, all
6 reporting to our CEO. And no matter what comes
7 out of the hearings, the results, we would first
8 tackle those objectives. And we can always
9 supplement our own resources with the hiring of
10 consultants, which we do for most part anyway in
11 terms of preparation for the hearings, in terms of
12 preparing the predesign, in terms of preparing the
13 EIS, and in terms of doing the final design. As
14 much as possible we do try to use our own
15 resources, but we definitely supplement with
16 consulting services or contractor services or
17 whatever it takes.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: In respect of
19 forthcoming environmental protection plans, will
20 they include an environmental management system
21 for the authority itself?
22 MR. MCNEIL: I'm going to pass that
23 question to Mr. Peterson, as he has prepared the
24 EPP.
25 MR. PETERSON: Peterson speaking. Can
00792
1 you clarify that a little bit?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Environmental
3 management system is sort of an element of
4 environmental management, and I'm just wondering
5 if the Authority intends to put in place an
6 environmental management system to guide it, to
7 guide its work in the environmental protection
8 area?
9 MR. PETERSON: I will try to answer
10 that, but I'm not quite sure that it is getting --
11 what you are getting at.
12 During the construction phase,
13 basically with the construction the environmental
14 protection plan is an environmental management
15 system. During post construction and in the
16 future, are you then referring to the ongoing
17 monitoring say of chemical use or monitoring for
18 derelict vehicles or --
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I think I am referring
20 to an environmental system that would guide the
21 Floodway Authority in how it carries out its
22 mandate.
23 MR. MCMILLAN: There are internal
24 protocols that guide the authority in doing its
25 work to ensure that environmental issues are
00793
1 always top of mind.
2 MR. PETERSON: Peterson speaking.
3 Some of those are described in section 12 of the
4 supplementary filing, which is the construction
5 phase environmental protection plan. Part of that
6 will be the establishment, for example, of our
7 guiding principles, and how we will -- if you look
8 at how we are going to conduct ourselves. It is a
9 generic term that covers a lot of things.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a generic term
11 but it -- Mr. McNeil.
12 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. McNeil speaking. I
13 was just going to add, Mr. Chair, that as a Crown
14 agency of the Government, we've adopted basically
15 the sustainable development practices and
16 principles of the Manitoba Government. So in our
17 office administratively we have adopted those
18 principles. Doug is speaking specifically to the
19 EPPs, but we have a recycling program and we try
20 to minimize the use of resources whenever
21 possible. And the EPPs and everything else that
22 follows out of that administrative policy
23 framework follows those sustainable development
24 practices.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not entirely sure
00794
1 we are talking about the same thing, but I will
2 leave it for now.
3 MR. MCNEIL: I'm not either.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: So that concludes the
5 Clean Environment Commission cross-examination up
6 to this stage. As I've noted before, when the
7 participants are engaging in their
8 cross-examinations, we may come back in with some
9 questions that more directly relate to their
10 concerns.
11 Right after lunch we will start with
12 participant groups conducting cross-examination of
13 the Floodway Authority. The first person up will
14 be Mr. Paul Clifton. It is my understanding that
15 Mr. Paul Clifton has some props that he wishes to
16 use. As long as they are relevant to the issues
17 before us, that is perfectly acceptable. I would
18 ask Mr. Clifton to have them in place before 1:00
19 o'clock, and we will reconvene exactly 1:00
20 o'clock.
21 (Proceedings recessed at 12:00 and
22 reconvened at 1:00 p.m.)
23
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Could we come to order,
25 please. Now we're going to have some minor
00795
1 problems here because I can't see all of your
2 smiling faces. But I would ask that if you are
3 trying to get my attention or if you are
4 responding to a question, please identify yourself
5 and we'll work around the props.
6 Mr. Clifton, just a couple of words
7 about cross-examination, and you've heard this
8 from me orally and probably in writing as well,
9 that the main purpose in asking questions at this
10 point is to gather information that you will later
11 use in your presentation or closing statement.
12 And it is also very important that questions that
13 you ask at this time are relevant to the issues
14 before us so that they are relevant essentially to
15 the filings that have been made by the Manitoba
16 Floodway Authority in respect of this application.
17 If any repetition or if you're asking
18 questions that have already been asked and
19 answered, I'll point it out and we'll just move on
20 to the next one. Okay, Mr. Clifton, over to you.
21 MR. CLIFTON: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I
22 haven't been sworn in though.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: At this point, you
24 don't need to be. At this point, you're
25 cross-examining. It's when you make your
00796
1 presentation, whenever that is, next week, that
2 you would need to be sworn in. At this point,
3 you're not giving evidence, you're asking
4 questions.
5 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. I'm just going to
6 talk very briefly about what I have before the
7 people and I'm speaking not only to you,
8 Mr. Chair, and your commissioners, Floodway
9 Expansion Authority folks but also public. This
10 is a public forum. I have put a lot of effort
11 into this thing and I think I have something to
12 add to this and I hope I do that.
13 In my humble opinion, we're moving
14 from a low head dam to a high head dam and the
15 first dam was never licensed and I'm going to go
16 through that in a bit.
17 There is some misunderstandings by
18 folks in my writings. Sometimes I go for the
19 throat and I don't necessarily mean that. In
20 particular, we'll deal with the Ombudsman's report
21 of 1998 and it referred to an incident that
22 happened in 1997. And to the very good credit of
23 your engineer that is heading up your technical
24 group on this in support of you is Mr. David
25 Farlinger behind you. I have got to credit
00797
1 Mr. David Farlinger for hearing very personally
2 about the issues in the valley, very clearly
3 listening and very clearly articulating what
4 people said. I've got to give Mr. Farlinger
5 credit for that.
6 In some of my writings to the Manitoba
7 Ombudsman, who has been very very helpful in this
8 thing, he's reported on the inadvertent
9 destruction of audiotapes of not only the
10 Commission hearings of the commissioners as you
11 would speak privately and under tape, but also
12 unfortunately the valley was devastated
13 significantly. People were out of their homes.
14 People came. They didn't have computers and all
15 this stuff, to articulate on paper what was in
16 their heart. They spoke to Mr. Farlinger and his
17 Commission and Mr. Farlinger's commission heard it
18 and recorded it. But inadvertently, those records
19 were destroyed.
20 As society becomes -- this is in the
21 report and it's very important. It talks about --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: You should be directing
23 questions to the proponent at this time. This
24 sounds more like a presentation which you'll get
25 an opportunity to do next week.
00798
1 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. So let me sit
2 down then. I have got records upon records upon
3 records. And then I in undertaking, way back
4 when, a default position and I have many questions
5 that I would like to ask of the Floodway Expansion
6 Authority -- and am I also able to expand on what
7 these people have provided in public to us or is
8 that something in that these gentlemen have
9 provided CV's of --
10 THE CHAIRMAN: At this time, you are
11 looking for clarification of issues to be used in
12 your presentation next week. So expansion on
13 issues and expressing your opinion should be done
14 next week, not during a cross-examination.
15 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. The West Dyke,
16 I've got that slide here. Okay. As I see it, the
17 West Dyke is in place now at an elevation of
18 roughly 97 plus 2 feet. And, Mr. McNeil, maybe
19 you can help me out here. That dyke that is now
20 existing, is that the dyke that was in place in
21 the flood of 1997?
22 And then further to that, I ask you,
23 was the existing dyke elevated and was that
24 existing dyke elevated under provincial licence
25 and to what degree was it elevated post flood?
00799
1 And also alignment. What is the alignment of the
2 dyke now versus the alignment in 1997, let's say
3 May 15th, 1997?
4 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I'd like to
5 ask Mr. Rick Hay from the Floodway Authority to
6 answer those questions. He's already been sworn
7 in and you have his CV.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. If he can come
9 to this front mic if you wish or he can come up to
10 the front.
11 MR. MCNEIL: Correction, I don't
12 believe Rick Hay was sworn in but you do have his
13 CV.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hay, it might just
15 be easiest to use that microphone right there,
16 just at the desk next to Mr. Handlon and I'll ask
17 Ms. Johnson to swear you in.
18
19 (RICK HAY: SWORN)
20
21 MR. HAY: A number of questions. I
22 will try to address them in the order I recall
23 them. The first one I believe was, is the current
24 alignment of the West Dyke what existed the same
25 as that that existed during the '97 flood?
00800
1 MR. CLIFTON: That's right. Like I
2 know the answers to these questions. What I'm
3 trying to lead into is you record or it's recorded
4 that on record what actually has transpired. But
5 the alignment has changed and I believe it's been
6 elevated. I believe it's been extended and I will
7 lead into that after you answer your question.
8 MR. HAY: My recollection of post '97
9 reconstruction of the West Dyke, if you will, is
10 that yes, there was an increase in the height, in
11 the elevation of the crest of portions of the West
12 Dyke, primarily I believe from a location known as
13 Avonlea Corner. It's the most southeast extension
14 of the West Dyke. I believe, from that point
15 going west, the reconstruction finished the crest
16 approximately a metre or less above its previous
17 elevation. I should back up a bit.
18 During the flood, as you may all
19 recall, an extensive effort was undertaken on the
20 West Dyke to raise it. And in fact, an extension,
21 if you will, commonly known at the time as the
22 Z-Dyke was hurriedly erected as well. That
23 extension got the moniker Z-Dyke because it indeed
24 took a criss-cross approach to its alignment.
25 Following the '97 flood, it's my understanding
00801
1 that hurriedly constructed portion of the West
2 Dyke was essentially returned to its original
3 grade.
4 The extension of the West Dyke that
5 was incorporated into the post flood
6 reconstruction of the West Dyke simply carried it
7 on from a point, I believe roughly a mile and a
8 half west of PR 330 where the West Dyke happens to
9 be on PR 305. Rather than take that cross-country
10 zigzag alignment, the PR 305 going straight west
11 early from its intersection at 330 was adopted, if
12 you want to call it, as the more logical alignment
13 of the West Dyke.
14 And PR 330 was reconstructed. I
15 haven't got the records with me to tell you
16 exactly when that work took place but I could
17 undertake to get those if the Commission requires.
18 Suffice it to say, there are portions
19 of the West Dyke existing now that are indeed
20 higher than they existed prior to and during the
21 1997 flood, if that's the point you're trying to
22 drive at.
23 MR. CLIFTON: That's where I'm going.
24 And actually, help me out. Can you recall the
25 project GI018 was the tender for moving
00802
1 40,000 cubic metres of mud? And I understand
2 that --
3 MR. HAY: Was that the Highway's
4 contract?
5 MR. CLIFTON: No, no, the initial
6 contract.
7 MR. HAY: I'm afraid I don't know.
8 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. There was a
9 caution to folks that if you're going to undertake
10 to expand the flood protection for the City of
11 Winnipeg, thou shalt strongly consider putting '97
12 behind. I know we're not supposed to talk about
13 compensation but we're talking about mitigation of
14 a project.
15 Okay. I have records here that I had
16 asked questions of environmental approval,
17 specifically Mr. Strachan and Mr. Webb as far as
18 the construction of the West Dyke. He gives me
19 records that he said discussions with the Water
20 Branch about the implications of elevating or
21 extending the dyke and told Water Branch that they
22 would have to have licence to do the work.
23 Are you aware whether the initial work
24 was done under licence or not?
25 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chair, I don't know
00803
1 that you can have a statement as lengthy as
2 Mr. Clifton did and then have a question. Perhaps
3 Mr. Clifton can be advised that if he's going to
4 make a statement, it should relate to the question
5 itself.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I generally accept your
7 comments, Mr. Handlon. We are a little looser in
8 our procedures than a court room.
9 Nonetheless, Mr. Clifton, you should
10 limit any introductory comments to your questions.
11 MR. CLIFTON: Let me rephrase it then.
12 Mr. Farlinger, in his very diligent work,
13 recommended the function of the West Dyke is
14 intended to perform as a fail safe under extreme
15 flood conditions by allowing the flood waters to
16 enter the LaSalle River system before extensively
17 high water can cause damages of the floodway
18 control structure should be considered in planning
19 the extension of the West Dyke.
20 Were there any studies or undertakings
21 to look at the implications against the control
22 structure of extending and elevating the existing
23 West Dyke?
24 MR. HAY: My recollection is that
25 there were. How formal, I would have to delve
00804
1 back into the records to find out. I do recall
2 that portion of the West Dyke that was involved in
3 PR 305. My recollection is that transportation --
4 well, the Highways Department at the time did get
5 an environmental approval to reconstruct that
6 grade and, you know, obviously to the, you know,
7 to the elevation as to the profile that was
8 designed. And my recollection was that there was
9 an assessment of the hydraulic implications
10 associated with, you know, with that environmental
11 approval.
12 Again, I would have to undertake to
13 try and find those specific approvals and the
14 reports behind them.
15 MR. CLIFTON: I'll help you a little
16 bit, read into the record, that the existing West
17 Dyke was topped up over the 10.8 miles in the
18 range of five and a half feet without licence.
19 Okay. Now I want to expand on this now, please.
20 And I get this information from supplementary
21 filing. Did you want to jump in?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: No. Go ahead,
23 Mr. Clifton.
24 MR. CLIFTON: In the supplementary
25 filing. As we get closer and closer to the
00805
1 project, these people are more candid. And I read
2 in here, and this is a western economic
3 diversification. Now I know this is a
4 Manitoba-led undertaking but there is certainly
5 the federal implications and federal dollars here.
6 And there is also more stringent requirements.
7 My question is, I read from WED's most
8 recent update on August 27th, 2004 that $6 million
9 of federal funds went into enhancement of the West
10 Dyke and elevations and extensions to Brunkild.
11 Can you give me the screening report number for
12 that particular federal screening of that project
13 that is required under the Canadian Environmental
14 Assessment Act?
15 THE CHAIRMAN: How is that relevant to
16 the matters before us? I'm prepared to allow
17 questions, general questions in respect of the
18 Z-Dyke because expansion and improvements to the
19 Z-Dyke or the West Dyke are a part of this
20 application but I don't know that federal
21 screening reports on past projects are relevant to
22 this proposal.
23 MR. CLIFTON: It's directly relevant
24 in that these folks have done work in partnership
25 with the federal government unlicensed, breaking
00806
1 the federal law and prophesying that 778 was
2 always in the works. 778, I'm going to get to it,
3 but 778 was impossible because there was a
4 failsafe built into the original design.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: But we're not here to
6 review all of the flood protection projects in
7 Southern Manitoba and around the City of Winnipeg,
8 past ones in particular. We're here to review the
9 proposal that's before the Commission. And the
10 proposal before the Commission does indeed include
11 changes to the West Dyke. But how past changes to
12 those dykes were done is not anything that's
13 relevant to our hearing.
14 MR. CLIFTON: This pictorial shows the
15 West Dyke going to Brunkild, okay.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: During 1997.
17 MR. CLIFTON: No, no, now. This is a
18 1 in 700 year flood protection. This is what I'm
19 representing here, okay.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
21 MR. CLIFTON: These folks, Manitoba,
22 with federal dollars, extended the dyke to
23 Brunkild. Now Floodway Expansion Authority has
24 taken over the project since then and they are
25 saying we are just building existing.
00807
1 Sir, I want it under the record that
2 they illegally extended the West Dyke to Brunkild.
3 Now, Mr. McNeil says all we have to do now is top
4 up the dyke to accommodate for free board and --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you ask
6 Mr. McNeil directly whether or not the work that's
7 been done on the West Dyke in the last few years
8 was done legally or not.
9 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. McNeil, from the
10 records from the Western Economic Diversification
11 website, it shows that $6 million went into
12 enhanced flood protection for the City of
13 Winnipeg. Do you know if the West Dyke was
14 extended and elevated legally?.
15 MR. HANDLON: Mr. Chair, it's Rick
16 Handlon again. My concern is if the question is
17 to authorization and that type of question, I mean
18 that's fine if it's within the purview of this
19 hearing. But to answer a question legally or
20 non-legally is a matter of opinion.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: You're correct of
22 course, Mr. Handlon.
23 And perhaps we might reword it,
24 Mr. Clifton, to under what authorization,
25 something to that effect.
00808
1 MR. CLIFTON: I am not a funded
2 participant. I don't have a lawyer sitting beside
3 me. I have --
4 THE CHAIRMAN: We're offering you some
5 advice, a very experienced lawyer to your left and
6 a less experienced lawyer at the table.
7 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. McNeil, you are
8 aware of the requirements under the Canadian
9 Environmental Assessment Act if Canada is to
10 partner with this project. Do you know if past
11 work in enhancing the City of Winnipeg's flood
12 protection was done appropriately?
13 MR. MCNEIL: My understanding is that
14 the province 100 per cent funded work to the West
15 Dyke following the 1997 flood and that the
16 province followed appropriate protocols and
17 received appropriate approvals for that work.
18 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. Now I have a
19 problem and I want to seek clarification.
20 Mr. Bruce Webb is right behind me. The retired
21 Larry Strachan is further behind me likely. These
22 people were told to stop, cease and desist. And
23 they packed up their tools and went home.
24 Now my problem is, is we have gone
25 from a 768 floodway inlet to 778 and I'm exploring
00809
1 how we got there so I can get an understanding of
2 how to present on the following Friday.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I think you may have
4 heard this morning in response to questions that I
5 was asking in particular about the floodway inlet,
6 that they noted that it has always been designed
7 to a 778.5; is that correct?
8 MR. MCNEIL: .3. Mr. Chair, if I may,
9 I'm going to read from a document. The title at
10 the top of the document is "Manitoba Department of
11 Agriculture and Conservation, Water Control and
12 Conservation Branch, Red River Floodway Inlet
13 Control Works, Memorandum on Preliminary Design."
14 It was produced by HG Acres And Company of Niagara
15 Falls, Canada and it's dated July 28, 1962.
16 I'm now turning to page 2 of that
17 document, section 2 titled "Hydraulics." Section
18 "A" Design Requirements. And let me read
19 paragraph III.
20 "The work should be capable of
21 restricting the discharge passing
22 downstream through the City of
23 Winnipeg so that water levels at
24 Redwood Bridge would not exceed
25 elevation 755.5 feet under conditions
00810
1 of maximum Assiniboine contribution up
2 to the stage at which upstream water
3 levels have been increased to
4 elevation 778.3 feet above sea level."
5 THE CHAIRMAN: So I take it from that,
6 Mr. Clifton, that it has always been 778.
7 MR. CLIFTON: You know, we're going to
8 be here a few hours because the engineers of the
9 day that designed this that studied from 1953 --
10 '50 to '53 under the Red River Base Investigation
11 and '57 and '58 under the Royal Commission of
12 Flood Cost Benefit took very seriously the rights
13 of people upstream. And I want to explore that.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: You are making
15 statements. And as I said earlier, this is not
16 the time to be making statements. You will have
17 an opportunity next week during your presentation.
18 You will have a final opportunity during closing
19 statements the following week to make any
20 statements that you wish. At this time, you
21 should be asking questions only of the Floodway
22 Authority and in relation, direct relation to the
23 matter before us, the application for a licence to
24 build a floodway or to expand the floodway.
25 MR. CLIFTON: I'm going to flip to my
00811
1 interrogatory questions. I had said earlier on
2 that these people are improperly editing my
3 representations so I don't have their answers but
4 I have my questions. I'm going to ask my
5 questions one at a time systematically and I'm
6 going to expect that they give me answers then. I
7 had questions 1 through 9 and the first.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Again, if they tell me
9 that they are not prepared to answer those
10 questions any differently than they did in the
11 interrogatory or information request process, then
12 I can't allow them because they have already been
13 asked and answered.
14 MR. CLIFTON: They have not been
15 answered, sir.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I will allow you to
17 point out how they have not been answered, as long
18 as it's not a rambling preamble. You find your
19 questions, point out how you feel that the answers
20 are deficient and I will allow that.
21 MR. CLIFTON: The premise on floodway
22 expansion is to maintain the natural under rule
23 number 1. Outside the purview of this assessment
24 is how the natural is calculated. The Manitoba
25 Water Branch undertook Acres Consultants to do a
00812
1 recomputation of the natural. And is there any
2 credit for the Assiniboine River reduction,
3 Mr. McNeil, from the way the natural was
4 calculated by Acres in that is there credit for
5 the Assiniboine River Diversion and the Shellmouth
6 Dam for any residents upstream of the City of
7 Winnipeg?
8 MR. MCNEIL: No.
9 MR. CLIFTON: So the Shellmouth Dam
10 and the Portage Diversion were built by Canada and
11 Manitoba for Winnipeg residents only?
12 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. They are
13 in conjunction with the three major flood control
14 works including the Red River Floodway to protect
15 Winnipeg. Shellmouth, the reservoir, and Portage
16 Diversion also have benefits to the residents
17 along the Assiniboine River downstream of both of
18 those structures as well. And the people north of
19 Winnipeg, and this was demonstrated yesterday,
20 between Winnipeg and the lake also benefit from
21 Shellmouth and the Assiniboine in that those water
22 levels will always be below natural.
23 So it was more than just Winnipeg but
24 it was taken into consideration as part of the
25 major flood control works for Winnipeg.
00813
1 MR. CLIFTON: So then, Mr. Bowering, I
2 think you are sworn in. And Mr. Bowering was very
3 very frugal with information over the last six
4 years. There is a chart up there. I wish he
5 could help explain to commissioners. There's one
6 in front of you there as well. These people are
7 misrepresenting the natural. They are not
8 providing credit for upstream, for a facility,
9 both the Portage Diversion and the Shellmouth Dam
10 that was built by Canada and Manitoba. And when
11 it was finished, it was turned over to the
12 Province of Manitoba. So I wonder, could you help
13 me with that, Rick?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: What is the source of
15 these diagrams?
16 MR. BOWERING: I am the source of
17 those diagrams.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 MR. BOWERING: What is shown on there,
20 but the upper one is the -- in both the upper and
21 lower one, the upper one is the water, the peak
22 water elevation at the floodway inlet. The lower
23 one is peak level in the City of Winnipeg. For
24 each year, there is three bars. The left bar is
25 using recorded Assiniboine which is what
00814
1 Mr. Clifton is suggesting we should be doing. The
2 middle bar is the actual peak level that happened,
3 both of the City of Winnipeg, the recorded peak,
4 and at the floodway entrance. And the right hand
5 is using the natural Assiniboine River levels.
6 Now, as Doug McNeil explained, when
7 the floodway was designed, natural basically meant
8 without flood control works in place. So natural
9 has always consistently, from before the floodway
10 was built right up until today, been computed as
11 the level that would occur at the floodway
12 entrance if there were no flood control works in
13 place. That means if there was no Shellmouth Dam,
14 no Portage Diversion or no floodway.
15 And so that is the yellow bar on the
16 right-hand side. By the way, the yellow bar is
17 computed based on the new relationships developed
18 by Acres in 2004. Of course, in those earlier
19 years, we were using a different relationship.
20 The relationship was developed when the floodway
21 was first constructed. So those aren't the
22 naturals that we were targeting back in the
23 earlier years, those are somewhat different. But
24 we don't need to get too many bars on here.
25 Really the point that Mr. Clifton is
00815
1 making is he would say that by operating the
2 Portage Diversion in Shellmouth, you already have
3 reduced flows coming down the Assiniboine River
4 and so there is already less flow north of
5 Winnipeg. And so why not apportion the other
6 advantages of just say there's less flow on the
7 Assiniboine. Whereas what we do is we compute
8 what the natural flow would have been on the
9 Assiniboine if those flood control works were not
10 there.
11 And so, as some of the residents in
12 the valley see it, that's kind of a double whammy
13 to the people in the valley. It really goes back
14 to what natural is. And the concept that we have
15 consistently held since before I started working
16 on this is that natural is what would have
17 happened in the absence of the three flood control
18 works, and then of course the dykes in the city as
19 well.
20 But we're talking about the three
21 flood control works that were built for flood
22 protection to Winnipeg and natural is what would
23 have occurred.
24 Now if you look at these spikes, you
25 see that the blue ones are a little bit lower than
00816
1 the yellow ones on the upper graph. Of course on
2 the lower graph, it's vice versa. And so what
3 this shows is that if you just use the recorded
4 flow on the Assiniboine instead of the computed
5 natural flow on the Assiniboine, you would be able
6 to -- the natural would be a little bit -- I don't
7 know if it would be called natural anymore but the
8 level we would target south of the city would be a
9 little bit lower than what we are currently
10 targeting south of the city.
11 Obviously, we could target almost any
12 kind of a relationship of sharing of the benefit
13 of the flood control works between the residents
14 south. That's really what Councillor Rutherford
15 was talking about in her questions yesterday.
16 Can't we let the levels go a little bit higher in
17 the city if it's not really high in the city and
18 provide a little bit advantage south of the city.
19 Any of those things are possible; however, the
20 flood control works were built for the City of
21 Winnipeg. And the fact is when you look at
22 economics, there's so many people living in the
23 City of Winnipeg that I think if you did it on
24 economics at least, you would never be able to
25 justify a change in the operating rules from these
00817
1 current rules.
2 So just to summarize then, what this
3 graph shows, the top graph shows that the floodway
4 inlet, the recorded level is the middle one, what
5 we use for natural based on the new relationship
6 is the right-hand one. The blue left-hand spike
7 is what the levels would be as a slight benefit to
8 the people south of the city if we used a
9 different definition of natural. And then the
10 James Avenue one at the bottom, it just shows what
11 effect that would have at levels in the City of
12 Winnipeg.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you,
14 Mr. Bowering.
15 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. I wonder if you
16 can help me one more question then, Mr. Bowering.
17 I understand the project is in the range of $660
18 million. And it's a federal and provincial cost
19 share agreement to do it 50/50. I'm a resident of
20 Canada, living upstream. I pay provincial and
21 federal taxes. What portion of federal and
22 provincial taxes will I be paying for floodway
23 expansion as compared to the City of Winnipeg
24 resident?
25 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, let me answer
00818
1 that. We haven't calculated that specifically.
2 If any particular resident of Manitoba or Winnipeg
3 or RM wanted to know that, we could do a rough
4 calculation if you wished, but we don't have that
5 number.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure that it's
7 relevant.
8 MR. CLIFTON: Well, it's clearly
9 relevant, Mr. Chair, in that they are offering up
10 reducing our flood protection from 1 in 160 is
11 what it used to be, in that range, down to 120
12 year flood frequency protection. City of Winnipeg
13 resident gets 1 in 700. But yet I understand that
14 there's no negotiated arrangement for people that
15 are to suffer as a result of this project. And
16 I'm just seeking clarification. Is there any sort
17 of negotiated arrangement to pond water upstream,
18 Mr. McNeil?
19 MR. MCNEIL: First of all, Mr. Chair,
20 their level of protection, the flood of 160 year,
21 which the floodway was originally designed to as
22 we indicated yesterday, the frequency of that
23 event has become more frequent. It's now a 100
24 year event. The federal and provincial
25 governments did spend money in the valley, over
00819
1 $3,000 per capita to provide a 100 year level
2 protection. And there is no agreement. But what
3 the province has undertaken to do is that in the
4 rare occurrence that people are artificially
5 flooded, that there is the Red River Floodway Act
6 that will provide for flood compensation for
7 artificial flooding.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. McNeil.
9 MR. CLIFTON: Is there any arrangement
10 to offset the annual right to pond water upstream
11 by a flood easement agreement or a flood
12 compensation agreement?
13 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I'll just
14 repeat myself. What the government has done is
15 created legislation called the Red River Floodway
16 Act basically to restore claimants to their
17 pre-flood position if they are artificially
18 flooded.
19 MR. CLIFTON: Okay, Mr. McNeil. The
20 figure in front of you, it shows a huge "C". And
21 you talked earlier that the artificial flooding
22 propagates right down to Morris. Have you
23 quantified the numbers of people, the numbers of
24 adults, the numbers of children, the numbers of
25 homes that are in that area? Is there a unique
00820
1 phenomena that happens? I'll let you answer the
2 first ones first. Have you quantified the number
3 of people, the number of women, children and homes
4 that are in that area?
5 MR. J. OSLER: If you were to look at
6 the Environmental Impact Statements under table
7 8.6-1 found on page 8-88, it lists the population
8 flood study region municipalities and First
9 Nations compared to Manitoba in 2001 which does
10 provide the population base from which we did the
11 assessment.
12 MR. CLIFTON: How rigorous was your
13 assessment? In my writings, I asked about
14 developable lots -- developed lots. And so over
15 the life of the floodway, what numbers are people?
16 Because what you're essentially doing by offering
17 up this project is you're limiting development in
18 the valley, thereby the salvation of the City of
19 Winnipeg. And I'm wondering how rigorous was your
20 assessment or did you just go from census numbers?
21 MR. J. OSLER: As table 8.6-1 points
22 out, the numbers are based on the 2001 Statistics
23 Canada information and the 2001 Manitoba Health
24 population report.
25 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. I want to go
00821
1 further because you are on the mic, John, and this
2 is all strictly just trying to get information.
3 You were involved in stakeholder
4 meetings generally throughout the valley, were you
5 not, including key person interviews of key
6 persons in the valley along the way?
7 MR. J. OSLER: My personal involvement
8 with the -- I have been involved in stakeholder
9 meetings and discussions with regards both to this
10 environmental assessment process and I think you
11 are alluding to an earlier Ste. Agathe floodway
12 expansion study process that was carried out as a
13 precursor to this.
14 As for key person interviews related
15 primarily to this environmental assessment
16 process, I was not involved in that process but
17 others within our firm were and those are
18 contained within chapter 8 of the EIS which
19 relates to socio-economic effects.
20 MR. CLIFTON: Did you, Mr. McNeil, and
21 others attend, because you tend to think that
22 you've done so well on the public consultations.
23 Did you attend meeting number 2 at the Howden
24 Community Hall where there was in the range of 100
25 to 75 or so people there. Were you in attendance
00822
1 there?
2 MR. MCNEIL: I was. And in fact, I
3 was the main presenter.
4 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. Did you and the
5 Floodway Expansion Authority generally answer any
6 questions presented by the public at those public
7 consultation discussions?
8 MR. MCNEIL: We answered every
9 question that was raised to us. Whether or not it
10 was satisfactory, that will be up to the person
11 who raised the question.
12 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Osler, do you
13 recognize the name, and this is an e-mail address
14 bmcgurk@intergroup.ca?
15 MR. J. OSLER: That's Brett McGurk who
16 is a research analyst with our firm.
17 MR. CLIFTON: Was he managing a
18 meeting at the Ste. Agathe hall for meeting number
19 3 as a stakeholder meeting?
20 MR. J. OSLER: He was present at that
21 meeting.
22 MR. CLIFTON: Did you have
23 correspondence from three residents upstream about
24 the accuracy of the minutes provided from that
25 hearing?
00823
1 MR. J. OSLER: The process, for the
2 sake of the Commission, when we conduct the public
3 consultation meetings and you will recall from my
4 presentation on Tuesday, I took you through what
5 the process was and the various methods of
6 consultation we used. One of those methods was a
7 series of stakeholder meetings where we had an
8 opportunity to talk in further depth with
9 particular interested parties.
10 The process was that we would organize
11 the meetings and individually invite various
12 parties or representatives from different groups
13 such as Mr. Clifton or representatives at the Ste.
14 Agathe meeting included the North Ritchot Action
15 Committee, the Ritchot Concerned Citizens
16 Committee. And then we had an opportunity to
17 present the information in a little bit more
18 detail than you otherwise would see in, say, an
19 open house format.
20 Questions were received and answers
21 were provided and they were noted in instance by
22 Mr. McGurk and they were reviewed subsequently.
23 We shared the draft form of those notes with the
24 participants in the meeting. Because as you look
25 at section 1 of the supplementary filing, which is
00824
1 in volume 4, the notes from that particular
2 meeting, once they had been finalized with the
3 community or, sorry, the interested parties became
4 part of the record and that became part of our
5 filing.
6 So in response to Mr. Clifton's
7 question directly, as a result of that meeting
8 that took place in June during round 3 inasmuch as
9 we've had experience with other meetings like
10 this, you had comments that came in from various
11 parties and I believe there were three, Paul.
12 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. And I know it's a
13 tough thing for you to say seeing as how you work
14 for the folks next to you, but would it be
15 accurate to say that two members of two community
16 groups left the meeting early? One member of the
17 community group left the meeting early and the
18 current vice-president of the Manitoba Floodway
19 Expansion Authority left the meeting early citing
20 "This is all BS"?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Where are you going
22 with this, Mr. Clifton?
23 MR. CLIFTON: The Floodway Expansion
24 Authority is saying that we ventured out and we've
25 done extensive consultations. They have barely
00825
1 ventured out into this area and the consultations
2 have not been very good.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: I mean they have
4 provided a fairly thick document, documenting
5 their consultation process. I suppose it's a
6 matter of opinion as to whether or not the
7 consultations were adequate. But where are you
8 going with your line of questioning?
9 MR. CLIFTON: Do you feel, Mr. Chair,
10 that from what you've heard so far, that the
11 representations of these folks in the valley have
12 adequately explained the adverse effects of this
13 project?
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm not in a
15 position to answer any questions at this time.
16 Our role is to come to some conclusions after the
17 hearings are completed.
18 MR. CLIFTON: I'm trying to present to
19 you that there's grievous harm in this project and
20 there's likely better ways. But anyway, I'll
21 carry on with just questions as directed here and
22 prove along the way that they haven't answered
23 questions here.
24 Cumulative effects. There is a
25 general disagreement in how these folks calculate
00826
1 cumulative effects. This is or was a low head dam
2 and we are going to now a high head dam. Is there
3 any illusion, Mr. McNeil, if we were trying to
4 license this with the current environmental
5 assessment environment as a new project, that you
6 would ever undertake to be able to get licence for
7 this project?
8 THE CHAIRMAN: That's pure
9 speculation.
10 MR. CLIFTON: How is the proponent to
11 determine the cumulative effect of the revised
12 project because as I see it, there's five
13 components, the City of Winnipeg's flood
14 protection infrastructure, there is the West Dyke,
15 there is the program operation for the floodway,
16 there is the control structure and the channel.
17 Through a letter from Mr. Gilroy to
18 the former Director of Environmental Approvals, he
19 requested and was granted the removal of the City
20 of Winnipeg's flood protection infrastructure from
21 the project assessment. How are we ever going to
22 know how this thing is going to operate over all
23 ranges of it be it summer, be it emergency summer,
24 be it recreational summer or being spring which
25 the Government of Canada bought into, Mr. McNeil?
00827
1 MR. MCNEIL: The simple answer is that
2 the program of operation includes now four rules
3 and those are hard and fast rules and they will be
4 followed and they are not changing from the
5 existing floodway to the expanded floodway.
6 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. McNeil, you are
7 obviously quite aware that I have been seeking
8 documents from your supposed partner in this all
9 the way along. And that was really because I
10 wasn't getting the facts as presented by you
11 folks. But I do find there's 54 federal cabinet
12 confidences in the floodway file. But I also find
13 an undertaking in October of 2002 that
14 committed --
15 THE CHAIRMAN: The question.
16 MR. CLIFTON: Let me find it, please,
17 and I'll get the question. The question,
18 Mr. Chair. Under the Red River Floodway Expansion
19 Project, proposal for a framework agreement
20 between the Government of Canada and the
21 Government of Manitoba and the City of Winnipeg
22 dated October 30th, 2002, why, in this proposal,
23 are we not undertaking what was detailed in that
24 and also included operation of the floodway, it
25 included the food protection infrastructure within
00828
1 the City of Winnipeg. Why are we not doing what
2 Canada, Manitoba and the City of Winnipeg agreed
3 to do in this project?
4 MR. MCNEIL: I believe that the
5 document you are referring to was an agreement, a
6 work in progress. That was a draft. It was never
7 finalized. The agreement that pertains to this
8 project is the Canada and Manitoba agreement on
9 Red River Floodway expansion and is dated
10 December 8th, 2003 and of which we provided you a
11 copy with, Mr. Clifton.
12 MR. CLIFTON: Do you have agreement
13 from your federal counterparts that the way you
14 are undertaking this is going to meet the
15 requirements under cumulative environmental
16 effects past, present and future right into
17 decommissioning? Will they be in agreement with
18 the way you are going here?
19 MR. REMPEL: That's yet to be
20 determined, Mr. Clifton. The federal authorities
21 are going to be informed from this hearing. They
22 are reviewing the EIS and they will conduct their
23 screening report. They will make that report
24 available for public review. They will review
25 those comments and then they will make a report
00829
1 with the Canadian Environment Assessment Agency
2 and the federal minister responsible for
3 approvals, they will make their determination at
4 that point. So at this point, there is no
5 assurance, no decision, no determination has been
6 made at this point.
7 MR. CLIFTON: Thank you. They are
8 becoming informed daily as we speak here.
9 Back to my questions. Paul Clifton,
10 question number 3. I had asked that the Floodway
11 Expansion Authority provide me relevant documents
12 as it relates to the 1958 Royal Commission on
13 Flood Cost Benefit. I asked them to provide me
14 page 7, page 71, 72 and 82.
15 I am going to ask on page 7 of that,
16 they talked about flood insurance. And they also
17 talked about money in a kitty in a sense, a
18 contributed for future flood damage compensation
19 to folks. Was that ever undertaken; and if not,
20 why not?
21 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Clifton, I am just
22 not in a position to comment on that.
23 MR. CLIFTON: The difficulty with all
24 this, and this leads into why there is ongoing
25 court cases, why there is difficulties right now,
00830
1 and I'll get into it in a minute, that we don't
2 follow the rules and we don't have money.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Question?
4 MR. CLIFTON: The question -- 71,
5 floodway design, they talked about one foot of
6 freeboard against the primary dykes in the City of
7 Winnipeg. The top page of 41 talks about in 1980
8 it changed and they undertook two feet of
9 freeboard. What studies or documentation are in
10 place to support that change, and what recognition
11 was there made at that time for additional waters
12 held upstream?
13 MR. MCNEIL: I'm going to ask
14 Mr. Bowering to try and respond to that question.
15 MR. BOWERING: I am going on
16 recollection here, Paul, but I think it would be
17 generally agreed that one foot of freeboard is a
18 pretty small amount of freeboard. And the general
19 standard that we've used throughout the valley is
20 two feet of freeboard, so we've flood proofed to
21 the 1997 flood plus two feet, and some would
22 suggest that two feet is not even enough
23 freeboard. And in critical structures like the
24 West Dyke, we've done specific studies, the
25 Floodway Authority has done specific studies. But
00831
1 it was generally, it was generally recognized that
2 one foot of freeboard was really inadequate and
3 two foot makes more sense.
4 MR. CLIFTON: Further on that, on the
5 Royal Commission of Flood Cost Benefits. Many,
6 many times we find through looking at the historic
7 records that good recommendation were made and
8 they have not been followed. In it they talk
9 about operation, and in order to evaluate the
10 operation they looked at one method of operation
11 or the second method of operation.
12 I ask the question, which method of
13 operation do you use, method number 1, method
14 number 2, or a third method not detailed in the
15 report?
16 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Clifton, I think
17 what's relevant to this project is the operation
18 rules that are in place today, which were approved
19 by Manitoba and Canada in the year 2000 and which
20 are not changing for the project that is being
21 assessed.
22 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. McNeil, to counter
23 that, I read from Mr. Reg Alcock's --
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Question.
25 MR. CLIFTON: Question?
00832
1 THE CHAIRMAN: No debate at this time,
2 you'll have your opportunity to make your case.
3 MR. CLIFTON: Question number 4, I had
4 asked the question to see records of writings as
5 it relates to the operating rules from public that
6 were requested by Minister Oscar Lathlin as it
7 related to the operating rules review committee.
8 Were the 80 letters provided to me, and if not,
9 why not; and was the letter provided to Paul
10 Clifton provided in its entirety?
11 MR. MCNEIL: Okay. So, the IRs, Paul
12 Clifton question number 4, the response from the
13 Floodway Authority was and I quote,
14 "Mr. Bowering was contacted regarding
15 release of the submissions.
16 Mr. Bowering will conform with the
17 department's freedom of information
18 advisor to determine if he can release
19 the submissions from private citizens.
20 Mr. Clifton can be advised to contact
21 Mr. Bowering directly."
22 MR. CLIFTON: The question was in two
23 parts, and it comes back to, are you properly
24 undertaking to represent what might be an adverse
25 opinion here. But two questions. First off,
00833
1 actually that hit on the first part of mine, was
2 the Paul Clifton letter presented in its entirety
3 from the Water Branch?
4 MR. MCNEIL: I can't comment on that
5 question.
6 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Bowering is right
7 there, maybe he could comment.
8 MR. BOWERING: Presented to who,
9 Mr. Clifton?
10 MR. CLIFTON: The proponent here is
11 Manitoba. There is a linkage between the Floodway
12 Expansion Authority and the Water Branch. You are
13 the operator, you are the proponent, so you guys
14 are sharing information. I don't know what you're
15 doing, but you're supposed to be working together
16 because you're Manitoba.
17 MR. BOWERING: Correct.
18 MR. CLIFTON: The record -- Doug
19 Peterson -- was represented as four pages. Was it
20 a four page letter or not, and why wouldn't you
21 represent the fifth page that obviously was there?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Where you going with
23 this?
24 MR. CLIFTON: Executive
25 responsibility.
00834
1 THE CHAIRMAN: But what does that have
2 to do with the application for an environmental
3 licence?
4 MR. CLIFTON: These folks --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clifton, I realize
6 that you have a number of concerns about how the
7 province has dealt with your issues over the last
8 few years, and I sympathize with you, but many of
9 them are outside of our mandate. We're quite
10 prepared to be fairly flexible in defining our
11 mandate, but when it gets far outside our mandate,
12 then I really do have to draw a line.
13 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. Question number
14 5, I believe there is inaccurate information given
15 to me by the Floodway Expansion Authority and I am
16 seeking clarification. Do you folks knowingly
17 know that the request of whether or not there was
18 federal funds in the West Dyke extension? And the
19 response by Mr. Dan McNaughton of the Canadian
20 Environmental Assessment Agency was inaccurate
21 when he provided it back to me.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know that he
23 can answer for Mr. McNaughton who is not a party
24 to these hearings.
25 MR. CLIFTON: Question number 6 talks
00835
1 about preparedness and the ability to run pumps,
2 because all of us have some sort of emergency
3 flood protection. There has been an extensive
4 flood proofing program throughout the valley. Has
5 there been an undertaking to flood proof the power
6 utility's infrastructure in the valley to give
7 people that are trying their "darndest" to save
8 their livelihoods, from loss of power?
9 MR. MCNEIL: The power utility,
10 Manitoba Hydro, I know since the 1997 flood had
11 undertaken a lot of work themselves to protect
12 their substations. That is part of their duties
13 and responsibilities as owners, operators and
14 maintainers of their infrastructure and their
15 plant.
16 As you know, through this process we
17 are assessing any cumulative effects of this
18 project, and in the south, and I mean south of
19 Winnipeg, there is a slight benefit with the
20 expansion of this project in that there will be
21 less frequent and severe flooding as a result of
22 this project.
23 MR. CLIFTON: So you're saying to me
24 there has been no undertaking by the Floodway
25 Expansion Authority, you're leaving it to the
00836
1 utility to deal with as they may. Because case in
2 point is just at Marchand Road, the St. Norbert
3 substation. Everybody in the immediate upstream
4 area rely on that. Are you undertaking to flood
5 proof that with monies from the Manitoba Floodway
6 Expansion Authority?
7 MR. MCNEIL: No, that's outside the
8 scope of this project.
9 MR. CLIFTON: Electrocution hazard. I
10 had a question in to Mr. Paul Anderson, assistant
11 deputy director or something of Manitoba EMO, that
12 hasn't yet been answered. But people are not
13 going to leave the valley. Are you going to
14 undertake to elevate lines in the valley so that
15 we don't kill people through electrocution through
16 your project?
17 MR. MCNEIL: We're not undertaking any
18 changes to power lines that are outside the scope
19 of this project.
20 MR. CLIFTON: In the public
21 consultation meetings that were minuted by
22 Mr. Terry Duguid, they weren't hearings, they were
23 public consultation, and so people didn't swear an
24 oath to speak but they spoke on the top four. And
25 interestingly, they were minuted in the Hansard
00837
1 records of, the legislative Hansard as a project
2 on the Red River Floodway. So in 2002, folks had
3 already undertaken to expand the floodway. And I
4 suggest to you that it was even earlier, like as
5 in 1997 in June. But they dealt with
6 compensation, terms of reference of the KGS
7 report, operation of the Red River Floodway, and
8 other flood protection options.
9 What have you done as far as measuring
10 your mitigation plan of this project to be
11 adequate as viewed by the people that are going to
12 avail it?
13 MR. MCNEIL: Could you be a little
14 more specific on specific effect?
15 MR. CLIFTON: The proposal is, I flood
16 you, I promise, I promise, I promise I'll pay. By
17 June 30th, I'll tell you if we are artificially
18 flooded, and I promise, I promise, I promise I'll
19 pay. What measure would you folks have in place
20 to assure we have people satisfied with the
21 payment they get for being put under by the
22 Government of Manitoba and the Government of
23 Canada?
24 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Clifton, I will refer
25 you to section 7 of the EIS supplementary filing.
00838
1 It gives an update on the Red River Floodway Act.
2 It talks about the criteria under which
3 compensation would be provided. It talks about
4 the administration of that Act, and it also talks
5 about the public process that the Act went
6 through, and I refer you to section 7.5. And it
7 states in there that there was a public meeting on
8 June 7, 2004 which you attended. And the
9 committee listened to the public comments, and
10 they did make changes to the proposed legislation
11 with respect to appeals, which I think is where
12 you are heading with this.
13 MR. CLIFTON: No, it's not, sir.
14 MR. MCNEIL: Okay, I am sorry.
15 MR. CLIFTON: You answer the
16 questions, sir, and I'll put my own thoughts in my
17 own head.
18 MR. MCNEIL: Anyway, Mr. Clifton, the
19 bottom line is the update on the Red River
20 Floodway Act that was provided in section 7 of the
21 supplementary filing is still valid today in terms
22 of where the Act is and how it will deal with
23 compensation and claims and appeals.
24 MR. CLIFTON: Do you, are you aware
25 that Hansard records are around for almost ever?
00839
1 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. And the Hansard
2 records for that public meeting are on the
3 province's website.
4 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. I bring to your
5 attention that I, as recorded by Hansard, was
6 petitioning for a federal/provincial judicial
7 review. Do you believe in the Canadian
8 Constitution, sir, in your undertakings with the
9 Floodway Expansion Authority?
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I don't think
11 that is quite relevant.
12 MR. CLIFTON: Am I to understand on
13 the control structure the wing walls, the upper
14 wing walls, the vertical section before they go
15 diagonally are at 771.0 or thereabouts, as your
16 best guess, Mr. McNeil?
17 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, I believe that's
18 correct.
19 MR. CLIFTON: For 35 years as the
20 floodway has existed, the riprap protection on
21 that upper face has been adequate, but now in your
22 proposal it's no longer adequate. How could that
23 be?
24 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Carson will answer
25 that question.
00840
1 MR. CARSON: I guess the answer lies
2 in the criteria that were used nearly 40 years ago
3 to design that riprap coverage. They have evolved
4 over the years. And what we were concerned about
5 was the underlying material and whether it could
6 be drawn out between the large stones, the riprap.
7 And that really is the issue. The riprap itself
8 is quite capable of withstanding the velocities of
9 flow that would go past it. So it was really
10 upgraded standards that led to the recommendation
11 for upgrading.
12 MR. CLIFTON: I am terribly troubled.
13 I've got a couple of reports authored by you
14 folks, KGS Group. And in one, you are honest and
15 you detail to the United States and Canada that
16 the upstream level for design was 771.25, and now
17 you're telling me it's 778. We've gone from
18 771.25 to 778. I am conflicted with that and I
19 wonder if you can help me, Mr. McNeil?
20 MR. MCNEIL: Which two reports are you
21 referring to, Mr. Clifton?
22 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. There was the
23 task force report to the IJC, and it was
24 Mr. Halliday, Mr. Larry Whitney, Mr. Doug McNeil
25 and Mr. Maurice Sydor of Environment Canada. And
00841
1 on page 4 they talk about the Red River Floodway,
2 the 1962 to '68 design, and they show in it that
3 the water level upstream of the inlet is 770.25.
4 But yet a year later, or pardon me, two years
5 later, we have the Canada/Manitoba/City of
6 Winnipeg report, the main report, and we now have
7 an insertion here that it says 778.0 water level
8 upstream of inlet for emergency operation. That
9 line doesn't exist in this one. So we were
10 truthful to the United States and Canada, but in
11 this one we're not truthful to Manitobans. And
12 I'm conflicted here. When did it change and why?
13 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Clifton, we're
14 truthful in those reports and every report since
15 then. The difference there is that 770.25 refers
16 to the water level upstream when the floodway has
17 reached its capacity, design capacity of
18 60,000 cubic feet per second, the associated water
19 level at the inlet control structure would be
20 770.25.
21 As you know in 1997, we went into rule
22 2, and the floodway flow was actually 65,000 cubic
23 feet per second, and it corresponded to a water
24 level at the inlet of 771 and a half. The 778 is
25 the ultimate capacity of the system, and a flood
00842
1 of 225 years, one in 225 year return period would
2 basically result in a water level at the inlet
3 control structure of 778. With the expanded
4 floodway, the 700 year level, one in 700 year
5 flood will result in an elevation at the inlet
6 control structure of 778.0 feet above sea level.
7 MR. CLIFTON: So clarify for me
8 Mr. McNeil, if we had a flood of 1826 in 1997,
9 would we have seen 778 at the floodway inlet?
10 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, we would have,
11 because 1826 flood is a one in 290 year event. So
12 once you have exceeded that one in 225 year event,
13 or 778 at the inlet, you cannot allow the water
14 level to go higher, you start lowering the gates.
15 And so there would have been a lot of flooding in
16 Winnipeg because all the additional flow would
17 have been routed through Winnipeg.
18 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. McNeil, you're an
19 engineer, aren't you?
20 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. I have
21 both a bachelors and a masters degree from the
22 University of Manitoba, and I studied under one of
23 the best water resources engineers in this
24 province, Mr. Ed Kuiper, and also Mr. Cas Booy.
25 MR. CLIFTON: Good for you. The water
00843
1 would have gone around and flooded into St.
2 Norbert on the LaSalle River system, would it not,
3 and you would have been incapable, because the
4 West Dyke wasn't there, as it is shown here now,
5 and you would have been incapable of coming to 778
6 at the floodway inlet?
7 MR. MCNEIL: I was just conferring
8 with Mr. Carson. As we did in 1997 to extend and
9 raise the West Dyke temporarily for that event, if
10 we were faced with an 1826 flood with the existing
11 system, again, it would have to be raised and
12 extended. And mostly for freeboard. In terms of
13 this project, raising and extending the West Dyke,
14 it's not to accommodate a water level higher than
15 778 at the inlet, it's entirely for wind and wave
16 concerns. And if you will recall from 1997, that
17 was a very big concern, that if we would have had
18 wave, wind, significant wind from the south and
19 wave uprush and the setup, that the West Dyke
20 could have been overtopped and could have resulted
21 in catastrophic flooding. And that is why there
22 was a great deal of effort to put in the temporary
23 means in 1997. And with this project we are going
24 to eliminate the need for temporary works because
25 we're going to do it permanently.
00844
1 MR. CLIFTON: I'm not going to argue
2 the point, I am trying to seek clarification, but
3 I do note my friend from the CBC is here, and you
4 topped up the dyke I believe five and a half feet
5 since, and I'll deal with that by chance because I
6 have slides that will depict that, but I'm going
7 to go into my next question. And it really
8 relates to Mr. Farlinger's very good report, and
9 it talks about until such time as an agreement on
10 emergency operation is reached, any future
11 negative impacts of residents south of the
12 floodgates caused as a result of deviating from
13 the public's program of operation or the floodway
14 in order to protect the City of Winnipeg should be
15 the responsibility of the City of Winnipeg.
16 Do we have in place presently an
17 agreement for emergency operation of the floodway?
18 MR. MCNEIL: I don't know exactly what
19 you are getting at. That statement in the
20 Manitoba Water Commission study was, I believe, an
21 interim measure that was recommended by the
22 Manitoba Water Commission until the operating
23 rules were reviewed. And I recall too, and I
24 forget the page, later on in that same document,
25 the Manitoba Water Commission indicated that it
00845
1 was prudent the way the floodway was operated in
2 1997.
3 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. I'm going to have
4 to flip to the infamous 197 and 198. These are
5 two records that were withheld, very diligently
6 withheld for six years or so, and they are
7 dovetailed in with my correspondence.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Question.
9 MR. CLIFTON: There will be a
10 question, sir.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Quickly.
12 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Bowering, do you
13 operate the floodway by the rules in a legal sense
14 of the requirement of operating rules?
15 MR. BOWERING: Well, we do operate
16 according to the operating rules. I don't know
17 what the last part meant, but we do follow the
18 operating rules when we operate the structure.
19 MR. CLIFTON: I've submitted extensive
20 records, and it's on my CD, and it is called Prime
21 Minister Jean Chretien and the Provincial Water
22 Branch. And I read the paragraph, and I want to
23 get clarification, please. This is record 198,
24 and it talks about the requirement on the front
25 end of it about getting federal approval of the
00846
1 operating rules.
2 "I present that this floodway isn't
3 licenced at this time. We have made
4 the point of operating rules are
5 really guidelines. They are not rules
6 in the legal sense of the regulations.
7 We have rule curves for all our
8 reservoirs and control structures. We
9 use them as guidelines. An engineer
10 would be irresponsible to knowingly
11 allow Winnipeg to flood by rigidly
12 holding to the operating rules."
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Whose words are you
14 reading?
15 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Bowering's words to
16 Mr. Maurice Sydor of Environment Canada, and that
17 was in response to a question of the PMO's office.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bowering, do you
19 have comment on that?
20 MR. BOWERING: Yes. That was just my
21 personal opinion as an engineer, and it was
22 recommended to be withheld through Freedom of
23 Information by our lawyer, because it was really
24 me making legal judgments, I suppose, on things
25 that engineers don't make legal judgments on. It
00847
1 was just my view that engineers have operating
2 rules and rule curves for lots of structures which
3 really generally are used as guidelines.
4 However, as we have proceeded down
5 this road and as we have reviewed and approved the
6 operating rules, the operating rules of course are
7 far more than guidelines. So for a small dam out
8 in the country, we would have what we call a rule
9 curve which is something we generally follow and
10 decide whether to open and close the gate. But
11 when it comes to the operation of the Red River
12 Floodway, now that we've finalized the rules, we
13 do follow those much more than guidelines, we do
14 follow them as rules.
15 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Bowering, you'll
16 likely recognize this as page 41 of your report.
17 In this it talks about operating rules and whether
18 or not the Water Branch can take advantage of
19 having all the homes up on hills. And it talks
20 about whether or not we should operate by the
21 rules or deviate from the rules and take advantage
22 of that. I'm going to read here, and I wonder if
23 you could help me.
24 "During the 1997 flood concerns were
25 expressed in the valley south levels
00848
1 would rise too quickly."
2 And it goes on and talks about whether or not the
3 City of Winnipeg could take advantage of this
4 intended ponding to alleviate sewer backup
5 damages.
6 "However, the operation could lead to
7 numerous disputes and a system would
8 have to be in place to compensate the
9 resulting minor damages and a
10 bureaucracy required to administer it
11 would be unwieldy. Therefore, the
12 committee decided against including in
13 the operating rules a provision for
14 deviation from the computed natural
15 level when water levels within the
16 City of Winnipeg are not threatening
17 to over top the primary dykes."
18 Is it possible to over top the primary dykes in
19 the City of Winnipeg other than spring flooding?
20 MR. BOWERING: No.
21 MR. CLIFTON: Would you say by this
22 that we are in dispute?
23 THE CHAIRMAN: That's not relevant to
24 our consideration today. I have already noted
25 that, we all recognize that you have a conflict
00849
1 with the province in respect of a number of
2 issues, but that's not before us.
3 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. Could we look at
4 this. I'll show you first, Mr. Chair --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm familiar with that
6 document.
7 MR. CLIFTON: You are.
8 Okay, Mr. Bowering, does this
9 accurately reflect the inlet at the present time?
10 Like given that it's not flooding, is the
11 restriction in front of the floodway channel, as
12 we see there, as it is now?
13 MR. BOWERING: There are some
14 differences. The two notches have been cut into
15 the outside embankment, and there also has been
16 some flood proofing work, in particular, what is
17 locally referred to as the Cloutier dyke which is
18 extended on the end of the Turnbull dyke.
19 MR. CLIFTON: Is it not true,
20 Mr. Bowering, that there is a restriction to the
21 inlet of the floodway control structure, because
22 not only is the Turnbull dyke there, but now there
23 is a Cloutier dyke extension that extends and
24 compromises the inlet further than the Turnbull
25 dyke?
00850
1 MR. BOWERING: We examined that when
2 we were doing the study, the initial studies for
3 putting the notches in. We had the Canadian
4 Hydraulic Centre look at that issue, and they
5 determined that it has a fairly minor effect. And
6 particularly as further studies have showed, once
7 you put the notches in, then more and more water
8 goes through the notches as water levels get
9 higher.
10 MR. CLIFTON: You would recognize the
11 TAC, Mr. Bowering, what that means, the acronym,
12 TAC?
13 MR. BOWERING: All right, technical
14 advisory committee.
15 MR. CLIFTON: That's correct. So you
16 recognize that. Are you aware that PFRA, who was
17 a partner with you at the time, had significant
18 concerns about the Water Branch partnering with
19 Cloutier dyke farms in extending known and obvious
20 impediment to flow into the floodway, so actually
21 you were aggravating it?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't know that
23 that's relevant to our consideration.
24 MR. CLIFTON: It's got to go, sir,
25 we're talking for minor floods, if that --
00851
1 THE CHAIRMAN: But whether or not
2 Mr. Bowering is aware that PFRA has some concerns
3 about it is not something that we can deal with.
4 MR. CLIFTON: It's not addressed in
5 the project, but there is an impediment. These
6 folks say that the notches in the east embankment
7 are good for folks. They are only good for folks
8 that live to the east. The people to the west
9 derive no, zero benefit from the notches. Help me
10 out here, Mr. Bowering.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: People to the west of?
12 MR. CLIFTON: West of Red River Drive,
13 and on the west of the Red River, the notches are
14 far too far to the east to provide any sort of
15 relief, and even in a good year the relief might
16 be in the range of 8 inches. Is that not true,
17 Mr. Bowering?
18 MR. BOWERING: I think you'd have to
19 ask that of the engineers who did the further
20 study of the notches and the effects.
21 MR. CLIFTON: We talk about the
22 insignificance of flooding the valley, and the
23 Manitoba Floodway Expansion Authority proposed
24 that the residual effects in the valley are of
25 very short duration and thus not significant.
00852
1 Can I get you to explain the not
2 significance of flooding the valley, Mr. McNeil?
3 MR. C. OSLER: I think --
4 MR. CLIFTON: And I'll reference it,
5 it's section 8, pardon me, chapter 8, section
6 8.3.4.
7 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. John Osler will take
8 this question, Mr. Chair.
9 MR. CLIFTON: It is chapter 8, 8.3.4.
10 MR. J. OSLER: Mr. Clifton, you are
11 referring to page 8-41. It summarizes the
12 residual effects and significance and resource
13 use?
14 MR. CLIFTON: No, I read it as 8.3.4,
15 in that you sort of state in there that the flood
16 is of very infrequent and is of short duration,
17 i.e. you folks put the water over my dyke, it
18 fills my home full of water, and it's not that
19 significant.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Are you referencing the
21 same document?
22 MR. CLIFTON: Well, I get this from my
23 October 14th, 2004 submission, and it was titled
24 "Comments on the Red River Floodway Expansion
25 EIS."
00853
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Is this the
2 supplementary filing or --
3 MR. CLIFTON: No. I'll get to the
4 supplementary filing a little later, but that was
5 the EIS. Am I wrong, John?
6 MR. J. OSLER: I can't find a
7 reference.
8 MR. MCNEIL: What page number are you
9 asking about, Mr. Clifton? Can you point us right
10 to the specific --
11 MR. CLIFTON: I'm sorry, I can't. If
12 you remember, you folks for economic reasons
13 didn't provide me an EIS, and so I was without an
14 EIS reviewing this stuff.
15 MR. MCNEIL: Sorry, Mr. Chair, we
16 provided all interested participants, the funded
17 participants got CD's, and Mr. Clifton also got
18 CD's of the entire documentation.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
20 MR. CLIFTON: It is so voluminous, Mr.
21 McNeil.
22 MR. MCNEIL: We are trying to be
23 environmentally friendly. You know by looking
24 behind you how many reports there are, so we put
25 most of them out to the public in CD format.
00854
1 MR. CLIFTON: You know, I think I have
2 been at this quite a long time, and I needed the
3 EIS myself, Mr. Chair.
4 But, anyway, you say in a sense, and
5 somewhere in that document it says that flooding
6 of your home, Mr. Clifton, is infrequent and is
7 not significant. And I wonder how you justify
8 that?
9 MR. J. OSLER: First of all, if you
10 recall the discussions that took place yesterday
11 that talked about cumulative effects assessment,
12 and we as part of that assessment looked at what
13 was a baseline and what was perceived at the time,
14 particularly with an example upstream of the
15 control structure, what was a natural. And we
16 noted that the difference between the two for the
17 example, I believe which was water levels, talked
18 to artificial flooding.
19 Independent of what we've spent a lot
20 of time this afternoon actually talking about,
21 things that contribute to where we are today, what
22 has happened in the past. The focus of this
23 project, of this environmental assessment is on
24 the environmental effects, and what you refer to
25 as the residual effects, as those effects,
00855
1 environmental effects after application and
2 mitigation.
3 We are focused here today on project
4 related environmental effects, and that will be
5 the difference between where we would be today and
6 in the future without this project, and where we
7 would be today or where we will be in the future
8 with this project.
9 When we talk about the effects on
10 residents and homes south of the inlet control
11 structure, particularly as it relates to
12 socioeconomic conditions, the things that we
13 looked at in chapter 8, the definition of
14 environmental effect means that it has to follow
15 from a change in the biophysical or physical
16 environment as an environmental effect. And as we
17 have talked yesterday in the presentation to the
18 Commission, and we've had some discussion today,
19 given that for all flood scenarios, all the
20 descriptions that Dr. Morgan and Mr. McNeil
21 referred to the different flood scenarios, that
22 water levels are expected to be equal to or lower
23 than for all flood scenarios that were considered.
24 And as a result, the impacts, or the environmental
25 effect, or the associated environmental effect on
00856
1 people, from my perspective, is that they are not
2 significant. There is not a likely significant
3 adverse environmental effect from this project,
4 the Floodway Expansion Project.
5 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Osler, do you live
6 upstream of the floodway by chance?
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Not relevant.
8 MR. CLIFTON: I'm sorry, I had to
9 throw that in.
10 I'm going to bring reference further
11 on about the representation by the Manitoba
12 Floodway Expansion Authority at public
13 consultation hearings, and specifically a
14 starboard of the program of operation. And I'm
15 going to just seek clarification in that you folks
16 are generally engineers, and you generally do work
17 by contract, and one of the fundamentals is you
18 don't pay the contractor for doing his work until
19 such time as he's complied with all the statutory
20 requirements or specification requirements and
21 that. And I find that Canada and Manitoba
22 undertook an agreement to build the floodway. But
23 Canada didn't -- Manitoba did not comply to
24 Canada's requirements, but Canada paid anyway.
25 And it was only 33 years later that they actually
00857
1 got federal approval. But in your starboard, I'm
2 just confused, you say that the Province of
3 Manitoba owned the floodway operating rules. Do
4 Province of Manitoba own the damages that result
5 from floodway operation as well, or do they share
6 that with Canada? And that's specific to the
7 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act requirement
8 that Canada mitigate the adverse effects if you're
9 partnering on a job.
10 MR. HANDLON: That is a matter --
11 Mr. Clifton is arguing, he's not asking a
12 question.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: I agree.
14 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. The 1962
15 agreement required that the program of operation
16 be submitted before the construction was complete.
17 Did that happen, Mr. McNeil?
18 MR. MCNEIL: I can't answer that
19 question Mr. Clifton.
20 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Bowering, can you
21 help me, please?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: How is that relevant?
23 MR. CLIFTON: It's relevant because
24 they are saying, sir, that operation is carved in
25 stone, okay, they are saying that operation is
00858
1 carved in stone, okay. We are not going to deal
2 with any other operation but the way they say they
3 operate, we're not dealing with the natural
4 because we're going to deal with what I say is
5 natural, you know.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: They are saying that
7 they have adopted new rules in -- well, that
8 report was December 1999, I believe they were
9 adopted about a year later by the government.
10 Rule 4 came into effect this past November.
11 MR. CLIFTON: How, sir, could we
12 live -- how could we live, sir, upstream of a dam
13 that these people could just throw in a rule, have
14 public hearings and say, yeah, we've got this new
15 rule. You know, this floodway was built to flood
16 protect from spring flooding.
17 The International Joint Commission --
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not here to debate
19 with you, Mr. Clifton, I just don't see the
20 relevance of whether or not the rules were
21 formally adopted by Canada in 1962. It's my
22 understanding that whether the rules were adopted
23 or not, the rules have been more or less
24 consistently followed since 1969 when the floodway
25 first operated. There was a change subsequent to
00859
1 the 1997 flood.
2 MR. CLIFTON: No, sir, the record
3 doesn't clearly say that.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not here to debate
5 with you.
6 MR. CLIFTON: No.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I want you to
8 demonstrate to me the relevance of this whole line
9 of questioning.
10 MR. CLIFTON: What is happening here
11 is, I'm going to explain.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: We --
13 MR. CLIFTON: I'm going to explain.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Future operations of
15 this floodway are clearly within the purview of
16 our review. Past operations, you'll have to show
17 me how it's relevant.
18 MR. CLIFTON: I am going to show you
19 how it is relevant.
20 The thing was, the operating rules, as
21 were approved by Minister David Anderson over
22 there, said that thou shalt not operate the
23 floodway unless there's an imminent threat of over
24 topping from the primary dykes. That is what the
25 rules say, that's page 41. Is that the most
00860
1 current rules, Mr. Bowering?
2 MR. BOWERING: What you are referring
3 to there is the parts that I think you put in red,
4 which was a discussion of a modification of rule 1
5 that had been suggested by the RM of Ritchot that
6 we modify rule 1, that while the water level is
7 rising we could deviate from natural if there was
8 a reason to. And the decision there is all in
9 context of operation during rule 1. The decision
10 there was that we would not. And so this is the
11 rule that we put in as far as rule 1 goes.
12 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. You were the
13 operator of the floodway, Mr. Bowering, okay. The
14 City of Winnipeg derives benefit. Now I'm just a
15 layman sitting out in the valley, but let's say
16 June 18, 2002, how did it happen that the floodway
17 was operated on June 18, 2002? Did the city phone
18 you and say, hey, put that floodway in operation?
19 MR. BOWERING: Well, it was a matter
20 of discussion and considerable concern with storms
21 coming and the levels already quite high. There's
22 a different situation as -- a different situation
23 with summer floods because of the problem of
24 intense thunder storms happening. Intense thunder
25 storms are very rare during a spring flood, and so
00861
1 the city can sustain somewhat higher levels
2 without risking extensive sewer backup. But in
3 the summer, at very high river levels, they -- if
4 there was a thunder storm happening, there would
5 be -- the sewers would back up. And so that's why
6 we came up with this -- we did the emergency
7 operation in the summer of 2002. And at that time
8 we thought of it as a one time operation. Then we
9 found in the summer of 2004 we had a very similar
10 situation, and so then we operated again. At that
11 point we had to recognize that, well, if we are
12 going to continue to operate, we'd better have a
13 rule of how we're going to do this. So that's why
14 we developed the rule 4.
15 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I would just
16 remind the Commission that the decision to -- or
17 sorry, the Federal Government approved the
18 existing operating rules 1, 2 and 3 in 2000. The
19 Federal Government passed responsibility for those
20 rules to the province in 2003, and then the
21 province chose to operate the floodway to protect
22 against basement flooding, significant potential
23 basement flooding damage and risk to public health
24 in that operation, both in 2002 and 2004.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. McNeil, are you
00862
1 saying that in future any modifications to the
2 rules is solely within the purview of the
3 province?
4 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Chair, I seek
7 clarification, because there's very few people
8 that have actually experienced, viewed basement
9 flooding. Basement flooding generally is viewed
10 from a boat, and generally is from the
11 manipulation of gates from some unlicensed
12 facility. And you see the water come up so high
13 it goes into the basement windows.
14 Mr. McNeil, do you see that in the
15 City of Winnipeg when you say basement flooding or
16 does that basement flooding percolate -- because
17 it comes into flood lift pumps, sir.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: But, again, how is this
19 relevant to the review before us? I understand
20 your concern, and as I said earlier, I am
21 sympathetic towards it, but it just doesn't come
22 into the purpose that we are here this week and
23 the next couple.
24 MR. CLIFTON: Okay, sir.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Furthermore, you know,
00863
1 you shouldn't be debating or even expressing
2 opinions. Backgrounds that lead into relevant
3 questions are acceptable, but they should be
4 relevantly brief.
5 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. The International
6 Joint Commission did extensive study of Red River
7 Valley flooding, and it was undertaken by Canada
8 and Manitoba.
9 On page 29 it recommends that
10 modification of sewer and land drainage systems be
11 undertaken to better flood protect the City of
12 Winnipeg.
13 Is there any modifications to the
14 sewer and land drainage systems to be undertaken
15 in this project?
16 MR. MCNEIL: No, none at all.
17 MR. CLIFTON: How many flood lift
18 pumps are going to be upgraded in the next while?
19 MR. MCNEIL: I couldn't answer that
20 question, you'd have to ask an employee of the
21 City of Winnipeg. And they do however have an
22 ongoing program to upgrade their sewer and their
23 flood protection infrastructure, but the details
24 of which you'd have to ask a city representative.
25 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. I want to talk
00864
1 then about legislated flood protection levels.
2 And we live in the Province of Manitoba, some of
3 us upstream of the works, some of us within the
4 flood protection of the works, and some
5 downstream. Are the flood protection levels
6 within the City of Winnipeg covered by some sort
7 of legislated mechanism, Mr. McNeil?
8 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, there are clauses in
9 the City of Winnipeg Act that pertain specifically
10 to the flood protection level. And pursuant to
11 the City of Winnipeg Act, there's Manitoba
12 regulation 266/91 that refers to the flood
13 proofing criteria that development within the
14 floodway or the flood plain must adhere to. And
15 the design level is 27.8 feet at James Avenue
16 equivalent.
17 MR. CLIFTON: Would you know if the
18 800 or some homes between the river and the
19 primary dykes are within that guise of the
20 legislated flood protection level?
21 MR. MCNEIL: I would guess that 99 per
22 cent of the homes that you are referring to, the
23 800 homes that needed sandbag protection in 1997,
24 were built prior to the legislation, and the
25 legislation was passed in 1980, specifically
00865
1 Manitoba regulation. And that most of those homes
2 were actually built prior to the 1950 flood. Any
3 homes built in the flood plain of Winnipeg's Red,
4 Assiniboine and Seine Rivers since 1980 have had
5 to adhere to the flood proofing regulations.
6 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. But I don't care
7 about grandfather or whatever. Where is the
8 protection lying for the City of Winnipeg as it
9 relates to the legislated Flood Protection Act
10 that's in place and detailed under the City of
11 Winnipeg Charter Act?
12 MR. MCNEIL: Manitoba regulation
13 refers to flood risk maps. There are two copies.
14 One is situated now at Manitoba Water Stewardship,
15 and one is situated with the City of Winnipeg, and
16 additional copies are with the planning branch,
17 the Water and Waste Department, et cetera. So
18 that everybody is aware of, any time there is
19 development in the flood plain, that those
20 regulations must be adhered to.
21 MR. CLIFTON: Would it be true to say
22 that in the '57 and '58 report on Royal Commission
23 on Flood Cost Benefit, that the Commissioners of
24 the day saw that there was going to be losses when
25 there was a flood of record, and those losses
00866
1 would be those homes between the primary dykes and
2 the secondary dykes in the City of Winnipeg?
3 MR. MCNEIL: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I
4 can't answer that question.
5 MR. CLIFTON: Mr. Bowering, can you
6 answer that question?
7 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure that it's
8 relevant.
9 MR. CLIFTON: But it is, sir, because
10 we're shifting, I'm trying to get an understanding
11 of where this shift came from for a low head dam
12 to a high head dam?
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Can you explain what
14 you mean between a low head dam and a high head
15 dam?
16 MR. CLIFTON: The Commissioners in
17 1957 and '58 and '50 to '53 looked at two options.
18 They looked at the Ste. Agathe retention option,
19 and there's a high ridge at Ste. Agathe.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
21 MR. CLIFTON: And they also had the
22 floodway as an entity, and they could not in their
23 day get a handle on how you would annually offset
24 the right to flood a bunch of people, so they came
25 with the floodway. And they looked at, let's
00867
1 build a 60,000 CFS floodway channel because
2 Winnipeg is going to grow from 350,000 to, they
3 projected in 25 years, 700,000 people. But they
4 never knew how to annually offset the right, how
5 they would ever pay those people. So the deal was
6 that they would never ever exceed the natural.
7 That's where the term natural came in. So if we
8 don't ever exceed the natural, then we don't have
9 to have a compensation agreement.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
11 MR. CLIFTON: That is at 768 by the
12 report of the Royal Commission of Flood Cost
13 Benefit. I'm going to be asking later, how do we
14 get from 768 to 770.25 in the United States and
15 Canada, and then we go from that to a high head
16 dam of 778. The facility, until we extended the
17 West Dyke illegally, was incapable of that.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Why don't you ask that
19 question now?
20 MR. CLIFTON: How did we go,
21 Mr. Bowering, from the intent of being a low head
22 dam, never exceeding natural, and never having the
23 necessity to acquire the right to flood, to what
24 we're now looking at and quite aggressively trying
25 to seek a better way?
00868
1 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I'd like to
2 answer this question, but give a real life
3 example. Mr. Clifton is referring to the Royal
4 Cost Benefit Study. That was a study that was
5 part of a process. I quoted from the memorandum
6 on preliminary design, which was the final
7 document that said the design level was 778. Let
8 me give you an example in today's situation.
9 We have preliminary documents that say
10 that for this project we're going to widen and
11 deepen six and a half feet. And now today we're
12 saying we're not widening at all.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: You're not deepening at
14 all.
15 MR. MCNEIL: Oops, correction for the
16 record.
17 We're not deepening, I repeat no
18 deepening of the floodway. And if you were to
19 compare the concept report, the flood protection
20 studies for Winnipeg report, and at the end of the
21 day as constructed drawings for this project, it
22 would be like comparing the Royal Commission
23 report to this design memorandum. Things change.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clifton.
25 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. The Minister, the
00869
1 Federal Minister of the Environment had the intent
2 to include residents of the valley when there
3 would be any review of operating rules for the
4 floodway. The International Joint Commission very
5 clearly and independently heard from people, and
6 they on page 31 of the report, say clearly the
7 protection of Winnipeg must be given high
8 priority, but it is equally clear that proposals
9 for additional flood protection for the City of
10 Winnipeg or alterations to the operating rules of
11 the floodway must take into full account social
12 human costs of other areas that would be affected
13 by such measures.
14 Has that been done in the undertakings
15 to expand the floodway, reduce the upstream flood
16 protection level from 1,160 or so down to 1,120?
17 And I'll let you answer that question and then
18 I'll come into the next one, please.
19 MR. MCNEIL: I guess what I can add,
20 Mr. Chair, is that since 1997, governments have
21 recognized the risk of flooding in the valley, and
22 I repeat myself by saying that they provided over
23 $110 million to increase the level of flood
24 protection for communities and for individuals,
25 and also when this project is complete, there is
00870
1 another increased level of protection over and
2 above what existed in 1997.
3 MR. CLIFTON: Help me out then. What
4 would it cost, because you did look at the cost,
5 what would it cost to build a project to provide
6 one in 700 year flood protection for everybody in
7 the valley, including the City of Winnipeg?
8 MR. MCNEIL: We did some very, what we
9 call back of the envelope calculations, very, very
10 rough, and I think it was about, in addition to
11 the 3,000 plus dollars per capita to provide the
12 protection to the hundred year plus two feet, it
13 was another $3,000 or $4,000 per capita for the
14 areas that needed 700 year protection. And I say
15 the areas that needed it. Once you go south of
16 Morris, because the hydraulic grade line flattens
17 out considerably and is not much higher than the
18 smaller floods, that Morris, for example, would
19 need very little additional protection, as would
20 Emerson. Letellier needs maybe a foot. But the
21 area that really needs additional protection is
22 the area from Morris to Winnipeg, but it averages
23 out to over $3,000 per capita. And there is
24 presumably about 30,000 people there.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: So about 190 to a
00871
1 hundred million dollars, ballpark.
2 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, very rough ballpark
3 figure.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clifton.
5 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. I have got
6 another question, and I'm wondering who in this
7 room representing the proponent would be the most
8 senior and be able to speak for the Premier in the
9 absence of the Premier.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: I don't think that
11 that's relevant.
12 MR. CLIFTON: Okay.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: The Premier isn't on
14 the stand today.
15 MR. CLIFTON: What I am going to ask
16 then is, who undertook to immediately, because the
17 City of Winnipeg came so close to being lost, who
18 undertook to immediately advance floodway
19 expansion in May of 1997, May -- or June, June or
20 so of 1997?
21 MR. MCNEIL: There was no activity,
22 and I can speak to this because I was involved in
23 most, if not all of the committees and studies and
24 whatnot since the flood of 1997. It wasn't until
25 the IJC studies, the first that KGS undertook for
00872
1 the IJC task force in 1999, wherein they reviewed
2 40 -- or sorry, 20 options for greater flood
3 protection for Winnipeg after determining that
4 Winnipeg was at risk of flooding in the future.
5 And then -- well, the story goes from there,
6 Mr. Chair, that I included in my presentation on
7 Tuesday.
8 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. I talked at the
9 very start of this about destruction of records,
10 inadvertent, but I submitted in my interrogatories
11 question number 9. And it relates to Minister
12 Swarthy's flood prevention initiative. And they
13 are looking to garner support under an MU between
14 the Government of Canada and the Government of
15 Manitoba.
16 Did that include advancing Red River
17 Floodway expansion immediately post 1997 flood?
18 MR. MCNEIL: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, I
19 am not aware of this document and I don't have a
20 Paul Clifton question number 9, so I can't answer
21 that question.
22 MR. CLIFTON: Can somebody please
23 explain to me -- I work throughout the Province of
24 Manitoba, I had difficulty getting downtown to
25 make representations, but I represented in the
00873
1 range of 54 pages relating to background records
2 and questions -- and how this gets so convoluted
3 that not only are my questions not posted, but the
4 answers aren't there either. My question clearly
5 was detailed in here about Mr. Swarthy's
6 undertaking, and I'm trying to have an
7 understanding of what Mr. Swarthy's undertaking
8 was --
9 THE CHAIRMAN: How is that relevant to
10 the issue before us?
11 MR. CLIFTON: There was $50 million
12 additional came into the province, okay. And in
13 that homes were elevated in the valley under a
14 flood proofing program, okay.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
16 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. Now, the province
17 either took an initiative on their own, through
18 Water Branch, without executive controls, or under
19 the direction and guise of the Government of
20 Canada to advance floodway expansion then. This
21 dyke is there now. And so what I'm trying to
22 understand is, what executive level made these
23 decisions to advance this now? Because they
24 needed to do a number of things. They needed to
25 extend the West Dyke and top it up. They needed
00874
1 to change the operating rules. They needed to
2 modify the inlet gates, and then all that's left
3 is the channel widening.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'd point out
5 that Mr. Swarthy has left politics a number of
6 years ago. Any executive decisions made in 1997,
7 that government is no longer in office and they
8 are not here to answer for that, and furthermore,
9 I just don't see how it's relevant to the matter
10 before us.
11 You know, we're not here to decide
12 whether or not the floodway expansion should go
13 ahead, we're here to decide whether, as proposed,
14 it can go ahead without causing any significant
15 environmental, socio-economic, et cetera.
16 MR. CLIFTON: We know it can't, sir,
17 we know it can't. It can't go ahead because it
18 significantly affects a bunch of people.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, that's your
20 opinion.
21 MR. CLIFTON: And you --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: The mandate that the
23 three of us have up here is to listen to all of
24 the evidence that's relevant, and come to some
25 decisions in that regard in a few weeks.
00875
1 MR. CLIFTON: Okay. Can I carry on
2 with my questioning, and I'll try to be as civil
3 as I can?
4 People that live outside the moat of
5 the City of Winnipeg tend to find that it's common
6 knowledge that as far west as Killarney or farther
7 west, the Province of Manitoba, through their
8 Water Branch, has put in a number of municipal
9 drains, secondary drains, various stages of
10 drains. And these drains bring the water into the
11 Red River. And in most years it's not a
12 significant concern. But in flood years, these
13 provincial drains that are owned and operated by
14 the province, and maintained by the province,
15 significantly contribute more water into the
16 upstream area. What benefit is there in these
17 drains to the people in the immediate upstream,
18 and if there's no benefit, what is the adverse
19 effect as far as timing?
20 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not entirely sure
21 that that's relevant. I mean, we know that it
22 affects the amount of water in the Red River, but
23 how does that affect the issue before us, the
24 expansion of the floodway?
25 MR. CLIFTON: Were these drains put in
00876
1 with any sort of plan? Is there any sort of plan
2 in -- like we're doing things in some of a
3 piecemeal fashion. You know, and then somebody
4 has decided that Winnipeg is more important than
5 anybody else, let's discount everything else and
6 let's just go with this project.
7 You know, these drains are in place.
8 There's a significant problem with the Seine River
9 Diversion, and it was reported by the Manitoba
10 Water Commission. It was noted, you know. And
11 how does that timing of those drains affect the
12 level that piles up south of the City of Winnipeg?
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm not a water
14 engineer and I don't work for the Department of
15 Water Stewardship, but I could recognize that it
16 would affect the amount of water flowing into the
17 Red River, but I just can't imagine how that
18 affects the issue of the expansion of the
19 floodway.
20 MR. CLIFTON: Well, it relates to the
21 natural. There's lots of stuff that you had been
22 told by government that you will not deal with.
23 You will not deal with how the province calculates
24 the natural. That's out of the purview of what
25 you will do.
00877
1 THE CHAIRMAN: I haven't told the
2 province that, but I think you're probably right,
3 it probably is outside our purview.
4 MR. CLIFTON: Well, you see, that's
5 fundamental, the natural. Why should I not get
6 better than the natural? If we're spending
7 $660 million --
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clifton, please,
9 you're debating with me and that's not what we are
10 here for this afternoon. And if you don't sort of
11 get back onto relevant direction, I may have to
12 cut off your cross-examination, which I don't
13 particular want to do, as long as it is relevant.
14 MR. CLIFTON: I find in the federal
15 record that Mr. David Anderson, when he on April
16 21, 2001, provided approval, his approval was
17 interim approval, with the belief that if floodway
18 expansion were to go ahead, that the project would
19 have to be licensed with federal funds under the
20 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
21 Do we not, as the Floodway Expansion
22 Authority, accept that that was an interim
23 approval only?
24 THE CHAIRMAN: I would -- I can't
25 speak for Mr. Anderson or the federal process, but
00878
1 I would suspect that he gave his interim approval
2 at that time, and the fact that they have advanced
3 monies since then would indicate that they have
4 given more formal approval. But that still
5 doesn't take away from the other premise in
6 Mr. Anderson's letter that it's subject to
7 provincial and federal licensing, which is part of
8 what we're going through right now.
9 MR. CLIFTON: But Mr. Anderson said
10 clearly, and I will find it here, clearly, the
11 operating rules will be reviewed. He
12 recommended -- now this is a provincial issue
13 okay, and Mr. Anderson recommended strongly to
14 Manitoba that they consult with the residents of
15 the valley that would be adversely affected by
16 this.
17 Now, it's not within the purview of
18 the Federal Government to tell the provinces what
19 to do, because it's a provincial responsibility,
20 but a Federal Minister who is funding this thing
21 strongly talks to Manitoba, Manitoba should
22 listen, and that's my point. He recommends
23 strongly as advocated by the International Joint
24 Commission that the rules be reviewed.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: And we know that the
00879
1 rules have been reviewed. You pointed to us a
2 cover of a document that did review the rules.
3 MR. CLIFTON: No, sir. Those rules
4 were reviewed and they were signed off with
5 Manitoba in December of 1999. They went to the
6 Federal Minister and they were signed off in
7 April 26 of 2001. And in his letter he writes.
8 "In granting approval, I strongly
9 recommend, as advocated by the
10 International Joint Commission,
11 Manitoba undertake consultations with
12 the citizens on the rules of operation
13 of the floodway and flood protection
14 measures at the earliest possible
15 opportunity."
16 To my understanding, that hasn't
17 happened, sir.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm not going to
19 debate that point. Mr. Clifton, we are
20 approaching the time for an afternoon break. I'd
21 like to ask you how long do you think you will
22 continue in your cross-examination?
23 MR. CLIFTON: I have some
24 supplement -- this was my questions that were from
25 my filing, and then there is supplementary
00880
1 questions that these fellows haven't answered, not
2 at all. I understand that environmental approvals
3 and the Government of Canada decided that the
4 supplementary questions were not that onerous that
5 we couldn't proceed to public hearings. So, you
6 know, give me 45 minutes more I think.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I'm going to be
8 probably even a little less tolerant in respect of
9 irrelevant issues after the break. So please try
10 to have direct, brief questions to the Floodway
11 Authority.
12 We will take a break now and we'll
13 come back at 3:15 sharp.
14
15 Proceedings recessed at 3:00 and
16 reconvened at 3:15 p.m.)
17
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Can we come back to
19 order, please.
20 Mr. Clifton, as I noted before the
21 break, please be brief and relevant. We have at
22 least a couple of other parties who would like to
23 engage in some cross-examination today, if at all
24 possible. Mr. Clifton.
25 MR. CLIFTON: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
00881
1 I'm going to talk further on operating rules. And
2 as I said before, it has only been when studies
3 from outside of the province have been done that
4 there has been some real credible representations
5 as far as reporting. Mr. Farlinger certainly
6 heard that if the operating rules are to be
7 reviewed, they should be reviewed with City of
8 Winnipeg, Province of Manitoba, Government of
9 Canada, municipalities and residents of the
10 valley. I see Mr. Bowering is gone but --
11 THE CHAIRMAN: He is coming in now.
12 MR. CLIFTON: On the first of
13 February, 1999, many many constituents had bent
14 Mr. Bowering's ear and they suggested to Mr.
15 Bowering that we need to have resident
16 participation on the operating rules review,
17 because it is critically important to them. My
18 affiliation is with a community group that's
19 unfunded, but has for a number of years made
20 credible representations, there are the North
21 Richot Action Committee. But in requesting
22 resident participation, Mr. Bowering wrote to his
23 department to say I'm getting a lot of people
24 asking for participation on the operating rules
25 review. And subsequently folks wrote back to Mr.
00882
1 Bowering, and he articulated to the rest of the
2 folks, unfortunately the department has turned
3 down the requests. The reasons given is the
4 addition of the North Ritchot Action Committee
5 could complicate the deliberations and get us off
6 the rails. The department much prefers using an
7 interim report in March followed by public
8 meetings.
9 Has there ever been an interim report
10 on the operating rules? Has there ever been a
11 public meeting, and have residents themselves had
12 any participation on the review of the operating
13 rules that we talked about earlier? Mr. Bowering
14 or Mr. McNeil.
15 MR. MCNEIL: I don't think it is
16 relevant to these proceedings.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: But it is the process
18 as to how those operating rules were achieved that
19 Mr. Clifton is asking. The rules of the floodway
20 are certainly relevant, but how they were
21 developed, I'm not sure that it is terribly
22 relevant.
23 MR. CLIFTON: Sir, the one thing that
24 I'm going to add here, I'm going to ask
25 Mr. McNeil, were you with the City of Winnipeg on
00883
1 December 13, 1997, Mr. McNeil?
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm not sure that's
3 relevant.
4 MR. CLIFTON: It is directly relevant,
5 sir.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Please tell me how?
7 MR. CLIFTON: Ritchot was petitioned
8 by all of the residents not to sign the operating
9 rules because they are hurtful for us. They don't
10 consider our considerations, and there was five
11 points that Ritchot provided to Mr. McNeil by
12 facsimile.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, that's not
14 relevant to the matter before us. Please move on,
15 Mr. Clifton.
16 MR. CLIFTON: Summer operation in my
17 view is more destructive than spring operation
18 with the exception of inundating homes. We had
19 summer operation in 2002. Do you folks have any
20 quantitative studies as to the amount of land that
21 is flooded, the amount of animals that are
22 dislodged from burrowing dens. In my
23 supplementary filing I talk about fox, I talk
24 about deer and rabbits and the like. Has there
25 been any environmental assessment on what grievous
00884
1 harm you are doing to the environment through
2 summertime operation?
3 MR. MCNEIL: With respect to wildlife,
4 not to date. But as we indicate in section 8.3, I
5 believe of the supplementary filing there are --
6 sorry, 8.2, we propose together with Manitoba
7 Water Stewardship to look at specifically section
8 8.2.3 of the supplementary filing we talked about
9 the current and future investigations related to
10 river banks, fish passage, wildlife and the
11 adaptive management approach to those assessments.
12 MR. CLIFTON: Does it also include the
13 shrubbery and trees -- stuff along the river bank
14 tends to get its feet wet in the springtime when
15 it is not fully in leaf, but it is a different
16 story when things are fully in leaf and they sit
17 for weeks. Are you intending to study not only
18 the fauna but the flora as well?
19 MR. MCNEIL: I'm not sure at this
20 point. But it is still a plan to undertake these
21 studies, so it is certainly potential that we
22 could.
23 MR. CLIFTON: If you lose the trees on
24 the river bank, you lose the root system and that.
25 Will you be studying how aggressive the things
00885
1 will cascade over time through summer operation?
2 MR. MCNEIL: I would imagine that the
3 river bank study will include those kinds of
4 considerations.
5 MR. CLIFTON: Are you aware that the
6 municipality of Ritchot had asked the minister of
7 Water Stewardship to please help us study river
8 bank erosion?
9 MR. MCNEIL: I'm not.
10 MR. CLIFTON: So you wouldn't be aware
11 that the Minister of Conservation, Steve Ashton,
12 said that river bank erosion and stability is a
13 very expensive undertaking and we don't have a
14 budget for that sort of thing?
15 MR. MCNEIL: I'm not aware of that
16 correspondence.
17 MR. CLIFTON: Would you be aware that
18 Mr. Steve Topping had wrote after summertime
19 operation 2002, suggesting that the municipality
20 through municipal dollars should be moving roads
21 away from the river by acquiring land with
22 municipal dollars?
23 MR. MCNEIL: Again, I'm not aware of
24 correspondence.
25 MR. CLIFTON: Would you help me out,
00886
1 Mr. Bowering, in that Mayor Stefaniuk had the
2 point that you are not licensing or allowing
3 further homes in the valley. What legislative
4 mechanism are you disallowing building of new
5 homes that meet the flood protection level within
6 the RM of Ritchot, and by that way affecting our
7 tax base in the Rural Municipality of Ritchot?
8 MR. BOWERING: This is not really my
9 area of expertise. I know it goes on in Water
10 Stewardship, there is a group that administers --
11 what is it called -- the designated flood area,
12 and decides if projects meet the requirements of
13 that. Beyond that I'm not aware of the specific
14 case.
15 MR. CLIFTON: But his question of you
16 yesterday was that even though people are
17 undertaking to meet the criteria, they are unable
18 to get permits to build. Could you follow-up on
19 that?
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Clifton, Mayor
21 Stefaniuk mentioned that yesterday as a statement.
22 Again, that's not relevant to the consideration
23 before us.
24 MR. CLIFTON: You need to depopulate
25 the valley if you are going to build this project,
00887
1 sir.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's a bit of
3 a provocative statement, but --
4 MR. CLIFTON: Provocative? Summer
5 operation is provocative operation.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: No, your statement was
7 that you need to depopulate the valley.
8 MR. CLIFTON: Or acquire the right to
9 flood through legislation, through negotiation.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Please move on to
11 relevant questions.
12 MR. CLIFTON: You know, sir, I'm going
13 to give other people time. With all due respect
14 to everybody here, I've asked a few questions and
15 I thank you for your time, sir.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much,
17 Mr. Clifton. We will give Mr. Clifton a moment to
18 clear his materials.
19 The next, going in alphabetical order,
20 the next party that has indicated that they wish
21 to engage in cross-examination at this time, is
22 the Cooks Creek Conservation District.
23 Could you please introduce yourselves
24 for the record and proceed.
25 MR. BUHLER: My name is Jake Buhler
00888
1 with the Cooks Creek Conservation District. I
2 would like to introduce legal counsel for the
3 district, Daryl Chicoine. And engineer for the
4 district is Jon Stefanson, engineer.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
6 MR. BUHLER: Mr. McNeil, you have
7 indicated in your submission as part of the
8 Floodway Expansion Project improvements will be
9 made to the drainage system. Can you explain to
10 us how these improvements will be expended?
11 MR. MCNEIL: Could you just explain a
12 little bit more detail?
13 MR. BUHLER: Yes. We have had some
14 discussions with you people with the Authority,
15 and we have come to the conclusion that in your
16 expansion plans and in your submission you refer
17 to improvements to the drainage systems. We were
18 wondering at what phase you are at? Is it in a
19 planning aspect at this point?
20 MR. MCNEIL: Mostly for the benefit of
21 the Commission, because Cooks Creek and the
22 municipalities are aware that we have had several
23 discussions with them through the predesign
24 process. We haven't yet undertaken final design
25 of the drainage drop structures, but what we have
00889
1 agreed to with the municipalities that are
2 affected by drainage drop structures and the Cooks
3 Creek Conservation District that because we have
4 to replace most of these structures any how
5 because of widening, then we will endeavour to
6 incorporate a capacity improvement into the design
7 such that they then can make improvements into the
8 future. And what still has to be decided is
9 exactly what amount of capacity and improvement we
10 will be doing, so we will need to continue to work
11 with these groups to try to accommodate their
12 needs in a realistic and cost effective manner.
13 MR. BUHLER: We understand that that
14 means that the structures will be replaced under
15 the expansion program?
16 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, they have to be
17 because we are going to be widening beyond them.
18 MR. BUHLER: In that case then, have
19 you determined to what lip elevations those
20 structures may be built to?
21 MR. MCNEIL: Not yet. As you know,
22 you are proposing one elevation and we've, in a
23 cursory manner, conceptual manner, looked at
24 another elevation. And we have to decide together
25 what the common ground is for that elevation of
00890
1 the weirs. And by the way for clarification to
2 the Commissioners, Cooks Creek Diversion or drop
3 structure, we are not widening at that location,
4 we happen to be widening on the opposite side of
5 the floodway, but there is some repair which is
6 required which would be normally the
7 responsibility of the owner, which is the Cooks
8 Creek Conservation District, but while we are
9 there we will undertake those repairs.
10 MR. BUHLER: Then there will be more
11 discussions regarding the -- and maybe an
12 agreement as to how and to what level they may be
13 reconstructed to?
14 MR. MCNEIL: Sorry?
15 MR. BUHLER: With the district?
16 MR. MCNEIL: Can you say that again,
17 Jake?
18 MR. BUHLER: I'm wondering if that
19 means we will have further discussions, and
20 agreements, some form of agreement then that we
21 will both be happy with in regards to setting
22 those lip elevations.
23 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, there will be some
24 form of agreement. First we have to agree.
25 MR. BUHLER: I will pass it over to
00891
1 Jon then.
2 MR. STEFANSON: Just a couple for
3 clarification. The capacity, the capacities that
4 you have chosen for the drop structures, they are
5 the one percent return frequency return capacity,
6 I understand. And my understanding is that these
7 are chosen for reasons other than to service the
8 agricultural surface water management systems,
9 they are more of a flood protection standard.
10 But, of course, they are in excess of anything
11 that the agriculture system would require, is that
12 a fair statement?
13 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. Just for the
14 Commissioner's benefit, the original drop
15 structures were designed to a one percent event
16 for the hydrology of the day. And what we did is
17 we assessed the condition of the drop structures
18 to determine if in fact they met that requirement.
19 And then looked at whether or not -- what it would
20 cost to increase their capacity to that one
21 percent standard with the hydrology of today. And
22 that's what we are committing to, is to that one
23 percent for the structures themselves. But I
24 believe we are using a two percent for the channel
25 within our right-of-way that leads from the drop
00892
1 structure to the property line. But that's still
2 preliminary. And that will be decided during
3 detailed design in consultation with Cooks Creek
4 and the other municipalities.
5 MR. STEFANSON: Capacity is one
6 aspect. The other main aspect is -- first of all,
7 it has been stated in a number of places that
8 these structures will be designed so that they
9 will not constrain future development of the
10 agricultural systems. Capacity is one that has
11 basically been taken care of, if we follow through
12 with the one percent. And the other is the
13 elevation of the structures to allow lowering of
14 the incoming channels in the future. Now, in
15 response to Jake's question you indicated that you
16 had, and I note you use the word cursory,
17 evaluation of what that difference in elevation
18 may be of the new structures as opposed to the
19 old.
20 MR. MCNEIL: I used the same level
21 analysis that you people did.
22 MR. STEFANSON: You mean the willy
23 nilly? Sorry, Mr. Chairman, that's a private
24 joke.
25 MR. MCNEIL: Preliminary,
00893
1 pre-conceptual.
2 MR. STEFANSON: So, in other words,
3 you have -- what sort of analysis did you do to
4 come up with the cursory elevations that you did
5 come up with?
6 MR. MCNEIL: I guess, I can't speak to
7 those details at this time. UMA Engineering under
8 contract with us during predesign undertook the
9 analysis, and you have seen the report and
10 reviewed it yourself.
11 MR. STEFANSON: Yes. To tell you the
12 truth, I don't recall that aspect of it, but we
13 will leave that. Do you have an idea of the cost
14 of constructing the new drop structures more or
15 less in a typical or average basis, and further
16 can you tell me what portion of that, or if that
17 includes some additional cost to provide those
18 lower elevations?
19 MR. MCNEIL: Okay. The predesign
20 report that I was referring to is appendix D, and
21 now I'm looking at page 4-13, and in response to
22 your question, table 4-3, floodway local drainage
23 structures estimated costs for rural drains,
24 improvements and gabling weirs, and you want just
25 the total, is for the Ashfield, Skholny
00894
1 Springfield, North Bibeau and Centreline drains is
2 1.6 million. That's what we would need to do just
3 to replace those structures. And to lower those
4 structures, I'm looking at table 4.5, and the
5 total then ends up being 3.6 million. So, we
6 don't have to increase the capacity of these
7 structures as part of this floodway project. But
8 due to the concerns and the issues raised by the
9 municipalities and Cooks Creek Conservation
10 District, we have committed to improving the
11 capacity of them since we are going to replace
12 them while we are there. It is a while you are at
13 it kind of thing, and to be good neighbors. And
14 so it is going to cost us approximately
15 $2 million.
16 Now those are very preliminary figures
17 at this point, again because this is predesign
18 numbers. And this will be determined, both the
19 design and the final costs will be determined
20 later during detailed design which will be coming
21 up shortly.
22 MR. MOTHERAL: I wonder if I can make
23 a comment. This is on the assumption that
24 increased drainage is good?
25 MR. STEFANSON: We will deal with that
00895
1 in our presentation on Monday. It will take too
2 long to answer that question right now. So the
3 difference of $2 million, that refers to the
4 increase in capacity as well as the lower end
5 elevation?
6 MR. MCNEIL: Yes.
7 MR. STEFANSON: So, you wouldn't have
8 a figure that refers to the lowering of the
9 elevation?
10 MR. MCNEIL: No. Just a minute. You
11 know, Jon, all of these things are in the report
12 that you have, right?
13 MR. STEFANSON: I guess I will have to
14 read it.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: I think he wants it on
16 record.
17 MR. STEFANSON: Could we strike that
18 from the record?
19 MR. MCNEIL: When you read mine, I
20 will read yours.
21 MR. STEFANSON: Mine is much shorter.
22 MR. MCNEIL: No, I have nothing to
23 add.
24 MR. BUHLER: As mentioned previously
25 in some of the meetings that we have had with the
00896
1 authority, Mr. McNeil, has the MFA considered
2 adding additional drop structures to the floodway
3 channel to facilitate more efficient drainage in
4 the areas where the floodway channels intercept
5 the natural?
6 MR. MCNEIL: We have not. That was
7 looked at in the predesign and it was determined
8 that the efficient drainage can still be
9 accommodated with the same number of structures
10 that exist today.
11 MR. BUHLER: Is there any concern that
12 the additional -- that the addition of
13 agricultural drainage discharge into the floodway
14 may overwhelm the capacity of the existing?
15 MR. MCNEIL: Sorry, I'm laughing
16 because the amount of drainage going into the
17 floodway from the drainage system pales in
18 comparison to the capacity of the existing and the
19 expanded floodway. And, in fact, you know that
20 little channel at the bottom called the low flow
21 channel, it is designed to handle 95 percent of
22 the discharge from summer events through that
23 channel. And that's not even touching the bottom
24 of the channel.
25 MR. BUHLER: Thank you.
00897
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I
2 don't see anybody from the Manitoba Metis
3 Federation or Manitoba Wildlands or North Ritchot
4 Action Committee. Peguis Indian Band has
5 indicated that they don't wish to cross-examine at
6 this time. Ritchot Concerned Citizens?
7 MS. CLIFTON: I will be brief.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you introduce
9 yourself?
10 MS. CLIFTON: My name is Maxine
11 Clifton. I'm a member of the Ritchot Concern
12 Citizens. I'm a resident upstream of the
13 floodway.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Proceed.
15 MS. CLIFTON: Honestly I didn't know
16 how to proceed with the voluminous documents, so
17 if it is all right with the Chair, I took quotes
18 from the presentations that I heard on the 15th.
19 I hopefully rightly attributed these quotes to
20 those individuals, and it will be to those people
21 that I address my questions.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: That's perfectly
23 acceptable.
24 MS. CLIFTON: I have gone through the
25 documents, found the quotes, highlighted them to
00898
1 make sure that I have them in context. If someone
2 from the Floodway Expansion wants me to find the
3 quotes, it will take me a few minutes to go
4 through the papers again. My first question came
5 from Mr. Gilroy in his opening address. May I ask
6 a question on that?
7 THE CHAIRMAN: You may ask a question
8 and if Mr. McNeil is able to answer, we will ask
9 him to do so.
10 MS. CLIFTON: Mr. Gilroy in his
11 opening address, a quote from him was that with
12 the floodway expansion we would avoid -- we would
13 avoid the longer term damage by mold which would
14 be horrific. Is this to mean that this is a
15 recognition by the Floodway Expansion Authority of
16 mold damage resulting from wet homes or basements
17 as being a horrific longer term damage?
18 MR. MCNEIL: I'm going to answer that
19 by saying that through that presentation that I
20 made following Mr. Gilroy, I showed a map of what
21 Winnipeg would look like in a 700 year flood with
22 the existing floodway. And you saw that a third
23 of the city was affected by overland flooding.
24 And the same third of the city would obviously be
25 affected by basement flooding. But an additional
00899
1 third of the city would be affected by basement
2 flooding. So that statement was based on the
3 knowledge of the occurrences following the 1997
4 flood and then multiplied several times over by
5 the almost 200,000 houses that would be affected
6 by basement flooding.
7 MS. CLIFTON: Sorry, that doesn't
8 answer my question, Mr. McNeil. Should I
9 rephrase?
10 MR. MCNEIL: Please do.
11 MS. CLIFTON: I still want to use
12 Mr. Gilroy's quote, though, he wanted to expand
13 the floodway to avoid the longer term damage by
14 mold which would be horrific. I'm asking is there
15 a recognition from the Expansion Authority that
16 mold and mold damage is a long term impact from
17 flooding, river flooding?
18 MR. J. OSLER: I might be able to cast
19 some light on this. RCC IR54 a response to a
20 question that was raised on mold, in regards to
21 socio-economic impacts of the initial flooding.
22 And the response that was provided says that the
23 proponent acknowledges that mold was a serious
24 health concern during flooding in 1997, and
25 further mold prevention would be a key
00900
1 consideration in responding to future flood
2 events. But mold effects are a flood event --
3 sorry, mold effects after a flood event are
4 generally related to the degree and duration of
5 flood water inundation. And as we have discussed
6 today and in previous days, we anticipated
7 primarily upstream of the floodway inlet control
8 structure, that water levels will be for all flood
9 scenarios no higher than, and in some instances
10 lower than, what is experienced with the existing
11 floodway. So the pathway follows that mold
12 effects as a result of that connection to changes
13 in water levels, although negligible, would be no
14 worse. So we did not find a significant adverse
15 environmental effect to be likely there of the
16 floodway expansion. Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Mrs. Clifton.
18 MS. CLIFTON: Can I rephrase that
19 differently or do we consider it asked and
20 answered?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: It is asked and
22 answered.
23 MS. CLIFTON: The second part of that
24 question is how does the Manitoba Floodway
25 Authority know this?
00901
1 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that Mr. Osler,
2 in his response, basically answered that question.
3 He accepted it as a potential aftermath or a
4 potential effect of flooding.
5 MS. CLIFTON: I am not sure where this
6 quote came from but I heard it several times on
7 the first day about the extensive public
8 consultation that was done in preparation for
9 these hearings. The Expansion Authority knows
10 this, but I will mention it again. That at one of
11 our consultation meetings, round three, I believe,
12 was a pretty contentious meeting out at Ste.
13 Agathe. And it was discussed at the meeting that
14 although MFA politely heard our concerns, that
15 there was actually no mechanism in place to
16 address them. So we as a committee asked Mr.
17 McNeil, so where do we take our concerns? And we
18 were advised to take them to Steve Topping,
19 Director of Water Resources. My question is, is
20 this still the position of the Floodway Authority
21 that our concerns are addressed with Mr. Topping?
22 MR. MCNEIL: Do you have a specific
23 issue that you want to speak to?
24 MS. CLIFTON: The issues were
25 artificial flooding upstream, the natural level
00902
1 studies, lack of input on the compensation, lack
2 of discussion on baseline, and a disagreement that
3 we had with -- I forget. There is four for you,
4 those were the concerns.
5 MR. MCNEIL: Yes. And I made that
6 statement because those things are under the
7 responsibility of Water Stewardship and outside
8 the scope of this project.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that one or two
10 of the items that Ms. Clifton listed are within
11 our mandate. Could you repeat again, you had
12 about four items?
13 MS. CLIFTON: The concerns that were
14 addressed at that meeting recorded by Mr. Osler,
15 were artificial flooding, natural level study,
16 lack of input on the compensation, what was in
17 scope or out of scope, and the baseline used.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that the
19 baseline that they used for their environmental
20 impact is certainly within the purview of this
21 review. And I would also think that the issue of
22 artificial flooding in so far as the expansion
23 effects, that is certainly --
24 MS. CLIFTON: It was our opinion that
25 it certainly belonged at the meeting, sir.
00903
1 MR. MCNEIL: And I agree with the
2 chair. And I believe that I answered those
3 questions at that meeting that were related to the
4 scope of this project.
5 MS. CLIFTON: So, it is still the
6 position of the Expansion Authority that our
7 concerns should be taken to Mr. Topping at the
8 director of water resources?
9 MR. MCNEIL: In terms of compensation
10 for previous occurrences, yes.
11 MS. CLIFTON: We weren't discussing
12 that at the meeting, Mr. McNeil.
13 MR. MCNEIL: I recall that we were. I
14 think I explained to the attendees at that meeting
15 the status of the Red River Floodway Act at that
16 time. You said it was round three. I thought
17 that was round two. What round was it?
18 MR. REMPEL: Mr. Osler can comment.
19 He has some notes in front of him.
20 MR. J. OSLER: The discussion that we
21 are having right now pertains to supplemental
22 filing section 1, page 1-17, and it references a
23 response to a question that was raised by the
24 North Ritchot -- actually it was the Ritchot
25 Concerned Citizens Committee. And the question
00904
1 was, who should the organization contact to
2 address their concerns on the consultation
3 processes with respect to the compensation
4 legislation, and summer operations. And the
5 response that was provided by Mr. McNeil was Steve
6 Topping, Direct of Water Branch, Department of
7 Water Stewardship was identified as the person to
8 whom these concerns should be directed to. The
9 question that Ms. Clifton is referring to is the
10 discussion that took place as well on the baseline
11 conditions which were a topic of that meeting as
12 well, but they are not contained in this
13 particular question.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Compensation in so far
15 as it is a mitigation of impacts caused by this
16 expansion project is within the purview of our
17 consideration. The matters in respect of the Red
18 River Floodway Act is really something -- it is
19 enacted legislation already, and I don't think it
20 is in our purview to offer any recommendations in
21 respect of that.
22 MS. CLIFTON: So my answer is yes for
23 that question right now?
24 MR. J. OSLER: Yes. Maybe Mr. McNeil
25 should answer it, but the question you asked was
00905
1 related to a variety of topics. The response is
2 provided in two items, that related to
3 compensation and summer water levels, not in
4 regards to baseline and scope, I think was the
5 other point that you were making.
6 MS. CLIFTON: I was annoyed by this
7 yesterday or the day before, but there might be
8 some good come of it. It was possibly because the
9 room was full of media crowding around, but my
10 original question was when did the stakeholder
11 groups suddenly become special interest groups? I
12 did see that there was front page coverage with
13 that term, so it served its purpose. But I was
14 thinking about it and I thought Mr. McNeil or any
15 one from the Floodway Authority knows who I am and
16 who I represent. May I ask them if I'm a special
17 interest group, what is my special interest?
18 MR. MCNEIL: First of all, if I'm
19 talking to anybody, and I don't have your
20 permission to use your name, I will refer to you
21 as a participant or special interest group, or a
22 stakeholder, whatever the case maybe, and I
23 apologize if I'm not allowed to use those
24 interchangeably.
25 MS. CLIFTON: Thank you. My question
00906
1 is what is the opinion or the thoughts of the
2 Expansion Authority on what exactly my special
3 interest might be? And I'm asking this not to
4 antagonize anyone, but I have been working daily
5 on this issue for eight years, and I would hope
6 that there would be some idea what it is we are
7 about.
8 MR. MCNEIL: Are you asking me to
9 repeat what the mandate is of the North Ritchot
10 Action Committee?
11 MS. CLIFTON: I'm not a member of the
12 North Ritchot Action Committee.
13 MR. MCNEIL: Sorry, Ritchot Concerned
14 Citizens Committee?
15 MS. CLIFTON: Yes. Just explain to
16 the Commission what you believe is our special
17 interest.
18 MR. MCNEIL: Won't it be far better
19 off if you explain to the Commission what your
20 mandate is and what your special interests are?
21 MS. CLIFTON: The question is
22 answered. Thank you.
23 This question comes from Mr. McNeil's
24 presentation. The existing floodway -- and I'm
25 not going very far in here -- avoided
00907
1 environmental damages. Are you aware whether or
2 not the existing floodway has ever caused
3 environmental damages through its operation?
4 MR. MCNEIL: The statement is meant to
5 indicate that if we get a 700 year flood with the
6 existing floodway and there is a third of the city
7 flooded, it will flood the sewage treatment
8 plants, it will flood the railway yards, it will
9 flood other chemical holding facilities, and the
10 list is endless. And when those flood waters
11 recede, they will take with them pollutants and
12 contaminants and end up in the Red River and end
13 up in Lake Winnipeg. And with this project we
14 avoid that environmental damage. So with the
15 operation of the floodway to date by avoiding
16 flooding of Winnipeg, we have avoided those
17 environmental damages.
18 MS. CLIFTON: My question was through
19 the operation of the existing floodway, has that
20 operation of the floodway ever caused
21 environmental damage?
22 MR. MCNEIL: I don't know
23 specifically, Mrs. Clifton. I would say that we
24 are aware that in 1997 certain lagoons in the
25 valley were over-topped, Morris, for example,
00908
1 right near the golf course. There were propane
2 tanks and things like that that floated away.
3 Whether that's directly attributable to the
4 natural water level or the artificial level, I
5 couldn't say. As you know from my presentation,
6 the artificial flooding caused by operation of the
7 floodway in 1997 was a vertical two feet at the
8 inlet control structure, and it ran out at Ste.
9 Agathe. And I would hazard a guess that it didn't
10 add too much to the total flooded area. So
11 whether or not some of those environmental
12 situations occurred, I couldn't say for sure.
13 MS. CLIFTON: So MFA's answer is you
14 don't know?
15 MR. MCNEIL: That's correct. But what
16 I do know is it did avoid, the operation in 1997,
17 a tremendous amount of environmental damage if
18 Winnipeg had flooded.
19 MS. CLIFTON: When you speak of wind
20 or wave setup against the west dyke, would you
21 think that might apply to the individual mounds
22 that homeowners are on upstream?
23 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, it could. You are
24 asking whether or not a free board of two feet --
25 sorry, I presume you are asking --
00909
1 MS. CLIFTON: Yes, go ahead.
2 MR. MCNEIL: That a free board of two
3 feet on ring dykes and individual houses would be
4 sufficient. It all depends on where you are in
5 the reservoir. Certainly if there is a concern
6 about wind and wave uprush with the community ring
7 dykes or the individual houses, they now have a
8 good base of permanent protection to '97 plus two,
9 which would provide the base for raising
10 temporarily with either clay fill or sand bags,
11 which would be the cost effective approach to that
12 situation. I understand as well, Mr. Chair, that
13 some people in the valley, I don't know how many,
14 I couldn't quantify, I could probably find out,
15 did in fact take advantage of the flood proofing
16 program and some of them did in fact protect
17 themselves to levels higher than 1997 plus two
18 feet, possibly because of concerns of wind and
19 wave or possibly because of concerns for larger
20 floods.
21 MS. CLIFTON: Or possibly because some
22 people finally learned about the 778 rule that we
23 didn't know before, Mr. McNeil.
24 And since that's brought up, if the
25 Commission doesn't know it by now, they sure will.
00910
1 This 778 rule is a very, very big problem for the
2 residents that live upstream. Mr. McNeil just
3 referred to us as "depending on where you live in
4 the reservoir." I want to --
5 THE CHAIRMAN: In fairness, I think he
6 meant that there was different wave actions in
7 different parts the reservoir.
8 MS. CLIFTON: I want to know what year
9 the community that I live in was declared a flood
10 zone?
11 MR. MCNEIL: I can't answer that
12 question, if in fact that was even a declaration
13 that was made.
14 MS. CLIFTON: With the capital region,
15 municipality and planning, the area that I live in
16 has now been declared or called a flood zone, and
17 building permits have since been restricted.
18 MR. MCNEIL: What I am aware of,
19 because I was responsible for flood plain zoning
20 and regulation in the City of Winnipeg, the
21 Province and Mr. Bowering referred to it earlier,
22 there is a flood plain management Zoning Act or
23 whatever the case may be, that has always been in
24 existence, at least since the 1979 flood and,
25 therefore, the regulation required that people in
00911
1 that zone be protected to '79 plus two feet. And
2 then because the 1997 flood was a larger flood and
3 higher water levels in '79, following certainly
4 the IJC recommendations, the province did amend
5 that regulation to say that development within
6 that, within the zone must meet '97 plus two feet.
7 And that's a prudent action by Government to
8 protect residences that develop in those areas.
9 MS. CLIFTON: Since you brought it up,
10 at the time that the '97 plus two flood protection
11 level was being implemented post the '97 flood,
12 was there anyone or any group from the upstream
13 areas express concern that this level would not be
14 high enough in light of the 778 rule?
15 MR. MCNEIL: I'm not aware of that
16 because I wasn't involved in the changes and
17 amendments that were made to that legislation.
18 MS. CLIFTON: Then I will answer your
19 question; there was vigorous concern expressed.
20 This is a question out of curiosity.
21 I'm told the 778 rule has been in place for some
22 time. And I'm curious, if the flood protection of
23 the City of Winnipeg came within inches in '97 of
24 being lost, why weren't the gates held up higher
25 to 778, if necessary?
00912
1 MR. MCNEIL: It wasn't necessary, the
2 gates were raised to the point to maintain that
3 two feet below the primary dykes. And due to the
4 flow that was coming at the city, which resulted
5 in going to -- in order to maintain the flow two
6 feet below the primary dykes, it was necessary to
7 go into rule 2, and because of the amount of flow
8 coming or flowing down the Red River, it was only
9 necessary to go to 771 and a half. That was the
10 resultant water level upstream with the given
11 flow. And that was a 100 year event. If it was a
12 225 year event, that year, in order to maintain
13 the water level two feet below the primary dykes
14 in Winnipeg, then the water level upstream would
15 have gone to 778.
16 MS. CLIFTON: I'm curious as to why
17 you would have taken such a risk if there was such
18 a fear and it was so close and it was such -- it
19 was within inches. I'm surprised you wouldn't
20 have operated the gates higher and not have taken
21 such a risk with lives and property in the city.
22 Why wouldn't you have operated the gates to even
23 775?
24 MR. MCNEIL: We were following rule 2.
25 We were following the operation rules in existence
00913
1 at the time.
2 MS. CLIFTON: The operation of the
3 existing project, I think there was a slide -- no,
4 I won't cover that. We have been told in the
5 approval or in this process -- I don't know what
6 it is called, process -- repeatedly that summer
7 time operation is not being looked at. And it was
8 a brand new term to me two days ago, non-spring
9 operation, autumn operation, summer emergency
10 operation. I have honestly never heard any of
11 these terms before. So I just need a
12 clarification. What exactly are we looking at in
13 terms of summer or non-spring operation here?
14 MR. MCNEIL: Originally, when they
15 operated in the summer of 2002, the primary
16 objective was to avoid significant basement
17 flooding damage and risk to public health. The
18 reason that the province operated then is because
19 in 1993, with elevated river levels, I think it
20 almost reached James 17 equivalent, almost
21 spilling into the floodway naturally. There were
22 significant rain storm events. In the course of
23 two weeks from late July to early August, there
24 was two hundred year return period rain storms
25 followed by a ten year that ran off like a hundred
00914
1 year, and the ensuing damage in Winnipeg was
2 estimated to be about $140 million paid out by
3 insurance companies.
4 MS. CLIFTON: What year was that?
5 MR. MCNEIL: 1993. The province
6 operated in 2002 because a situation was
7 approaching that was very similar to the actual
8 situation in 1993 when they didn't operate. And I
9 would say the majority, probably $100 million of
10 that 140 was directly related to the high river
11 levels. There was damage related to the
12 inadequate capacity of some of the sewers higher
13 up in the districts, far away from the rivers,
14 just because of the amount and intensity of the
15 rainfall.
16 MS. CLIFTON: I read the report, Mr.
17 McNeil.
18 MR. MCNEIL: So in 2002, with elevated
19 river levels, and I believe that the river was
20 about 16 James and there was forecasts of
21 significant rainfall events, the province decided
22 to operate for the same -- for prevention of
23 basement flooding and sewer backup and risk to
24 public health with respect to fecal coliforms in
25 basements.
00915
1 Following that the province promised
2 to study that situation and a report was prepared
3 which was released last fall, in November actually
4 of 2004. And the report specifically -- sorry,
5 the report covered off the situation of emergency
6 summer operation, but the province has also
7 considered the recreational aspects of summer
8 operation, i.e. keeping the water level below the
9 Forks and allowing boat traffic and water taxis
10 and the like. That has caused a lot of concern by
11 residents like yourself and others with respect to
12 that recreational component.
13 However, in 2004 the same situation
14 arose again, and the province operated again. I
15 believe the river reached James 14 or 15, there
16 was forecast significant summer rain storms, so
17 the province operated again. Again, the primary
18 purpose was to prevent sewer backup, basement
19 flooding and risk to public health.
20 Because of the concern while we are
21 going through this environmental process and the
22 predesign, we had indicated very early on that
23 there would be no summer operation for
24 recreational purposes, and that is now a future
25 possible project. In fact, it is out of the scope
00916
1 of this project, as I illustrated in my
2 presentation.
3 However, Government reserves the right
4 to consider the potential basement flooding
5 damages and risk to public health if there is a
6 high river level event in the summer, or possibly
7 if it was to occur in the fall with coincident
8 significant rain storms. So government adopted
9 rule number 4 for the floodway operation, and to
10 differentiate between the summer operation that
11 would be associated with recreation and a summer
12 operation-- and I keep using the word summer
13 because that's what we have been using all
14 along -- an operation that's specifically related
15 to emergency, then the new rule is referred to as
16 non-spring because it could happen in the fall as
17 well, as well as summer, emergency operation for
18 the prevention of sewer backup.
19 MR. REMPEL: I would just like to add
20 a comment. As we explained in the introduction to
21 the approach of the EIS, under either definition
22 that Mr. McNeil has made of the summer operation,
23 that summer operation is not an effect of this
24 expansion of the project. The summer operation
25 can happen, as has been demonstrated in 2002 and
00917
1 '04, the expansion of the project does not make it
2 any easier or less easy to do summer operation.
3 So it is not an effect of this expansion project.
4 MS. CLIFTON: Just to make sure I
5 understand you, I'm hearing that this new rule on
6 summer operation has been adopted, it is a
7 surprise to us by the way, and you have told us
8 earlier that if that rule had been in place since
9 the floodway was built we would see summer
10 operations -- what was it, 22 out of 35 years; is
11 that right?
12 MR. MCNEIL: Yes, 22 out of 36 years
13 in the past. You could project that for the
14 future if we had the same weather conditions over
15 the same period of time.
16 MS. CLIFTON: But because it is
17 existing we are not going to get a chance to
18 review it; is that what you are telling us?
19 MR. REMPEL: I am saying in the EIS we
20 did not assess summer operation, it is not a part
21 of this expansion project.
22 MS. CLIFTON: I heard you say that the
23 city's current flood protection levels are not
24 currently at the legislated flood protection
25 level. The province, through MFA, is continually
00918
1 threatening a cost to the taxpayers if there is
2 any delay in this project. I'm wondering if they
3 also have any estimates on what is the cost to the
4 upstream community if the city takes 20 years or
5 longer to upgrade their infrastructure, including
6 sewer and flood protection?
7 MR. MCNEIL: I refer you to section 11
8 titled "City of Winnipeg Flood Protection
9 Infrastructure," and specifically section 11.1 of
10 the supplementary filing.
11 It could possibly take the city 20
12 years or longer, it all depends on how much money
13 is approved for the program. What my concern was,
14 if it does take that long, we get a 700 year flood
15 after the floodway is expanded, can the city be
16 protected temporarily? We have looked at that in
17 detail, we have had discussions with the city, and
18 we've indicated in here that the city can in fact
19 be protected to the 700 year, two feet above the
20 700 backwater within the city.
21 Certainly there is some risk with
22 temporary works versus permanent works, that was
23 our experience in 1997, but the reality is that
24 the level of effort that goes into raising those
25 primary dykes is about a tenth of the level of
00919
1 effort that the city put into all of the earth
2 moving projects, raising dykes, et cetera, both
3 primary and secondary during the 1997 event. And
4 it is about a tenth of fill that's required. And
5 we feel that the city could easily do that in a
6 week's time, prepare the primary dykes.
7 As well, the city has a flood
8 protection manual that addresses all of the needs
9 and all of the activities that are required with
10 its existing flood protection infrastructure,
11 whether that be the flood pumping stations, or
12 gate chambers, or sealing manholes, or whatever
13 the case may be.
14 MS. CLIFTON: Thank you. As a comment
15 that may or may not indicate a general feel in the
16 city, I have heard it twice, once at work, once
17 socially, that if we built this new floodway,
18 thank God we will never have to sand bag again.
19 And on both occasions, of course, I questioned
20 them. And the thought was that when this floodway
21 goes through it will remove the need to ever have
22 to throw another sand bag. I don't know how wide
23 ranging that opinion might be, but just to let you
24 know it is out there.
25 MR. MCNEIL: So these are residents of
00920
1 the City of Winnipeg?
2 MS. CLIFTON: City of Winnipeg, yes.
3 MR. MCNEIL: Well, I don't know where
4 they live, but I can tell you that in addition to
5 the $110 million that was spent in the valley to
6 improve its flood protection infrastructure, that
7 the 800 houses that were at risk of flooding in
8 1997, which by the way are on the wet side of the
9 primary diking systems and would account for about
10 1 percent of the houses in City of Winnipeg, they
11 all required some form of temporary protection.
12 That was where 8 million sand bags were needed --
13 $11 million has since '97 has been spent in the
14 city to provide permanent dykes at many of those
15 locations. I would hazard to guess that 300
16 houses or dwelling units, because we also include
17 condominiums, have received funding assistance and
18 built permanent flood protection, but it wasn't
19 cost effective to bring them all the way up to
20 27.8. Lord Avenue was at 22 equivalent; Kingston
21 Crescent is 24.5 equivalent. So it was deemed to
22 be more cost effective to provide them with
23 permanent works to those elevations, but also
24 provide a solid base from which they can build up
25 a temporary sand bag dyke if need be for a repeat
00921
1 of a 1997 or larger flood. So it is all part of
2 the plan, it is all built into the flood manual,
3 and they will be notified if need be.
4 MS. CLIFTON: You have to understand,
5 Mr. McNeil, the people in the rural residential
6 area that I live in hear things like it is not
7 cost effective to raise this flood protection
8 level in the city, or it is not cost effective, or
9 the money is not available. And so they believe,
10 rightly or wrongly, that the flood waters are held
11 higher upstream of the city, and it is no comfort
12 to them when they hear it is not cost effective to
13 do these things. The tremendous sacrifice that's
14 being asked of these people, they are wondering
15 why the city does not appear to be doing their
16 part?
17 MR. MCNEIL: Well, I'm going to defend
18 the city, they are doing their part. I believe
19 they have spent about $22 million since 1997 on
20 their flood protection infrastructure to upgrade
21 it. I believe they have about another 12 million
22 in the five year capital budget from 2004 to 2009.
23 So they are doing their part, as they try to
24 apportion their funding for other kinds of
25 priorities in the City of Winnipeg. And the
00922
1 bottom line here is that the rules will be
2 followed. And so when the water level goes to
3 24.5 at James, or 25.5 in St. Norbert, those
4 permanent dyking locations will need sand bags,
5 the city will supply them, and hopefully
6 volunteers will be there to build them up, and the
7 rules will not be varied -- or there will be not
8 be a variance from the rules with respect to the
9 city's state of readiness, unless we are into rule
10 2, which the rules allow for.
11 MS. CLIFTON: I could never argue with
12 you, Mr. McNeil, but what I did say was it
13 appears, and sometimes the perception cannot be
14 reduced with all of the numbers that you could
15 produce.
16 After the summer operation of 2002, it
17 was widely publicized in the media that there
18 would be full compensation paid for all damages
19 related to summer time operation. Assurances were
20 provided. Is this in fact true, Mr. McNeil?
21 THE CHAIRMAN: I think that's beyond
22 the scope of this hearing.
23 MS. CLIFTON: Fair enough. I think
24 Paul covered that.
25 If we agree with using 778 above sea
00923
1 level as a baseline, which we in the upstream area
2 strenuously and vigorously do not, what would
3 be -- this is to Mr. Carson -- what would be the
4 annual cost in the upstream area from damages to
5 holding to this level? Does that make sense?
6 MR. MCNEIL: Mrs. Clifton, do you mean
7 if we get a flood bigger than --
8 MS. CLIFTON: No, if with the expanded
9 floodway water levels are held upstream to a level
10 of 778 above sea level, what would be a
11 calculation of the annual damage to the upstream
12 area?
13 MR. CARSON: Yes, we studied that, not
14 as part of this recent activity that we
15 participated in, but I guess back in 1999 and
16 2000. And what we were looking at was if the
17 operation were to be held at the state of nature
18 throughout all floods, whether they are one in 700
19 years, one in a 1,000, or one in 100. And we
20 tried to estimate exactly the number that you
21 referred to. And the average annual damage, I
22 believe it was about $40 million.
23 MS. CLIFTON: $51 million on page 28
24 of the KGS report.
25 MR. CARSON: Sorry, I'm corrected
00924
1 then.
2 MS. CLIFTON: So that's an annual cost
3 to the upstream area of $51 million if 778 is
4 used?
5 MR. CARSON: Well, I should qualify
6 that that was based on the data database we had on
7 elevations of various ring dykes and pads for
8 increased height for houses and so on. And that
9 may have changed since the database was developed
10 in 1999. So it could be less than 51, but we
11 haven't studied it since then.
12 MS. CLIFTON: Would it be more than
13 $45 million?
14 MR. CARSON: I don't know.
15 MS. CLIFTON: So we will use the $51
16 million until we have new data; is that fair?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: It is fair.
18 MS. CLIFTON: That's a heck of a cost
19 for an upstream community to bear on an annual
20 basis?
21 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Chair, I guess I
22 can't believe that would be the average annual
23 cost. This graph shows that --
24 MS. CLIFTON: Neither can we, sir.
25 MR. MCNEIL: -- at this stage of the
00925
1 game, after 110 million has been spent in the
2 valley. What this graph shows is the 700 -- I
3 will just point to the red line which is the 700
4 year flood, whether it is the existing floodway or
5 the expanded floodway. And this is the elevation
6 of the top of the dykes for all of these
7 communities. So Emerson is approximately two feet
8 above the 700 year level, Letellier is right about
9 equivalent, and St Jean is two, two and a half
10 feet, Morris is two feet, et cetera.
11 So the communities that would be at
12 risk for the 700 year flood are then the ones
13 between basically Avonlea Corner at Ste. Agathe
14 and the inlet. So we are talking about an
15 infrequent event. So even now after the 110
16 program, the communities immediately upstream of
17 the city should be, and are, based on the
18 legislation, at least two feet above the 1997
19 level that occurred in -- the actual 1997 flood
20 level, and even higher above the 1997 flood if it
21 is repeated for the expanded floodway.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
23 MS. CLIFTON: Am I wearing out my
24 welcome, Mr. Chair?
25 THE CHAIRMAN: I'm just wondering how
00926
1 much longer you expect to go, because I have one
2 more participant who would like to go today.
3 MS. CLIFTON: I'm trying to keep my
4 questions short, Mr. Chair. Some of the answers
5 are longer than I would rather have.
6 The KGS report discusses additional
7 engineering work but doesn't specify what it is
8 that would be required if summertime operation was
9 to become part of the floodway expansion. Is this
10 work then being done?
11 MR. MCNEIL: Those are the studies
12 that I referred to earlier, river banks, fish
13 passage, wildlife access, that will be done over
14 the next few years. Again, I point to section 8.2
15 that talks about those studies for summer
16 operation.
17 MS. CLIFTON: My questions are kind of
18 bouncing around, but that's the way it came out in
19 the transcript. It is back to the upstream
20 levels, the regulations of '97 plus two that were
21 vigorously questioned at the time.
22 The province knows, or knew that those
23 levels were going to be inadequate. Was it a
24 question of economics that there wasn't funding to
25 get those houses up where they need to be, or was
00927
1 it a question of inability to do so because of
2 engineering difficulties, or was there just blind
3 following of some rule in terms of '97 plus two
4 or -- we didn't actually ever get an answer to
5 that.
6 MR. MCNEIL: So, Mrs. Clifton, are you
7 asking prior to the '97 flood why was the flood
8 proofing criteria '79 water level plus two, and
9 why didn't the government make it higher?
10 MS. CLIFTON: Those questions were
11 asked after '79. I'm asking for after '97, when
12 we finally realized -- we didn't know about 778
13 prior to the '97 flood. When we found out and we
14 saw what was happening in our community, there was
15 this rigid sticking to this '97 plus two rule in
16 the face of what we knew at that time was going to
17 be inadequate.
18 I'm wondering what entered into the
19 decision to -- and for the benefit of the
20 Commission, the flood level in my neighborhood is
21 between 773 feet above sea legal, 773.5 and 774,
22 depending on where you are.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: The '97 flood level?
24 MS. CLIFTON: Yes. And it was very
25 frustrating at the time that we could not seem to
00928
1 get any answers as to why there wouldn't be either
2 adequate flood protection prescribed, or ordered,
3 or buyouts for those that wanted them.
4 MR. MCNEIL: Mr. Bowering will take
5 that question.
6 MR. BOWERING: As you are suggesting,
7 Mrs. Clifton, there is really not a clear precise
8 answer to this. The standard that we have used,
9 and the only standard that we have used for many
10 years is the highest flood plus two feet. And
11 there was discussion of the special situation of
12 the area in Ritchot, and discussion of whether
13 there should be a variance there, and after
14 discussion went round and round, the policy
15 decision made by senior management was stick to
16 the standard, which is 97 plus two feet.
17 MS. CLIFTON: Several of the homes in
18 my area are on the third raising now. I would
19 suggest, if I'm going to suggest anything, that
20 the last flood plus two feet is not working.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: We are getting into
22 debate. Questions.
23 MS. CLIFTON: Sorry, Mr. Chair.
24 Mr. McNeil, publicly it has been said,
25 and I quote,
00929
1 "The Z-dyke will eventually be
2 somewhere near Brunkild."
3 I live outside of the perimeter, and somewhere
4 near Brunkild could just about be anywhere. I'm
5 wondering, is the dyke going to be eventually
6 somewhere near Brunkild or is it there now?
7 MR. MCNEIL: The official west dyke
8 ends on Highway 305 about a mile east of Brunkild,
9 Manitoba. And if you just bear with me, I will
10 bring up my presentation. So Brunkild is
11 generally at the intersection of Highway 3 and
12 305, and the existing west dyke ends about a mile
13 east on that Highway 305. There is Highway 305.
14 And the plans are to extend the dyke north along
15 Mile Roads, and crossing Highway 3, and then west
16 and then north and then west to high ground in
17 consideration of the new design for the 700 year
18 plus 100 year wind. And the reason that we picked
19 this zigzag pattern in this area is that it is
20 generally following the boundary between two
21 drainage districts. And the reason that's
22 important is that the water in this area flows
23 away from the dyke generally, and the water in
24 this area flows away from the dyke, and there is
25 no crossing of the dyke, and therefore introducing
00930
1 holes in the dyke with culverts and gates and the
2 whole bit.
3 MS. CLIFTON: My point, Mr. McNeil,
4 was for the people listening to the hearings, and
5 possibly even the Commissioners, somewhere near
6 Brunkild just isn't good enough when you have
7 people on the wet side of that dyke.
8 Speaking of the west dyke, it barely
9 saw any water, as we know in '97, except up near
10 the floodway inlet. Moving it south, extending
11 it, never mind raising it, it has got to have an
12 impact on local water levels when you are
13 operating in all the operating ranges of the
14 floodway, including 773, 775, 778. What studies
15 have been done that will indicate local impacts
16 from water at higher ranges against that dyke?
17 MR. MCNEIL: So you are suggesting
18 that because of the existence of the west dyke,
19 this wall if you want to call it that, that water
20 levels in this region will be higher than if the
21 dyke didn't exist; is that what you are
22 suggesting? Anyway, let me finish my thought
23 because I think it is pertinent to the question.
24 The dyke in this area is also generally following
25 the drainage, the boundary of the drainage
00931
1 district between the Red River and the La Salle
2 River. And the 700 year flood -- or sorry, the
3 1997, I'm not sure about the 700 year, but the
4 1997 flood for sure without the west dyke would
5 barely get across that natural high level
6 boundary.
7 MS. CLIFTON: Before you go on, Mr.
8 McNeil, I will save you the trouble, speaking as a
9 lay person --
10 MR. MCNEIL: It is okay, sorry.
11 MS. CLIFTON: Speaking as a lay person
12 behind our dyke during '97, I observed a cat
13 clinging to go a tree branch, as this tree branch
14 was going very fast from west to east. And I
15 believe, as I went out in a boat and looked later,
16 that it was caused by an increased velocity of
17 water off that west dyke. And my question is, if
18 water levels are even higher than '97 levels up
19 against the dyke, would not that have an impact,
20 if not on higher water levels, perhaps velocity?
21 And has there been studies?
22 MR. MCNEIL: I think the simple answer
23 is no, not really. I know we answered this
24 question, I think through the CEC information
25 request process, so we will look for that answer.
00932
1 Generally the reason is, the landscape
2 is flat, and just because there is six feet or
3 12 feet of water on it doesn't necessarily mean
4 that the water is moving at a greater clip,
5 whether the dyke is there, the west dyke is there
6 or not. And I know that we've answered that
7 question because through our 2D analysis of both
8 the embankment of the floodway and the west dyke
9 for wind and wave setup, we look at velocities.
10 MS. CLIFTON: Mr. Osler --
11 MR. CARSON: Before we go any further,
12 could I correct something that I said earlier in
13 response to that question about the damages
14 upstream?
15 MS. CLIFTON: No, it is on the record,
16 sir.
17 MR. CARSON: Well, I would like to
18 correct what I put on the record because it was
19 absolutely wrong. I was depending on my memory
20 which is not the greatest, and it was based on
21 information that I was trying to recall that we
22 did almost five years ago. But it is in the
23 report that we refer to as the safe study report,
24 and it is on page 154, and the average annual
25 value that would represent the damages upstream if
00933
1 the water level was raised above the state of
2 nature are actually shown in a graph there as
3 $450,000. And the present value in 2001 dollars,
4 it says right here on page 154, is $9.7 million.
5 MS. CLIFTON: Now, you are talking
6 about just the property value?
7 MR. CARSON: Well, this would have
8 been based on or procedure that was used at the
9 time to estimate potential damages to residences
10 and commercial establishments and roads and so on.
11 MS. CLIFTON: So property and
12 infrastructure, but no other costs that might be
13 involved? Evacuation, for example?
14 MR. CARSON: Yes, evacuation would be
15 included, yes.
16 MS. CLIFTON: And what did you come up
17 with as the average annual cost?
18 MR. CARSON: For the difference
19 between operating above the state of nature and
20 not the state of nature is the present value as
21 stated in the report of $9.7 million.
22 MS. CLIFTON: No. My question was, if
23 the water is held to 778 above sea level, the
24 annual cost -- not above nature. There is a
25 difference.
00934
1 MR. CARSON: Well, I don't understand.
2 We didn't analyze that. That has no relationship
3 to the existing rules.
4 MR. MCNEIL: I guess, Mr. Chair, does
5 it really matter what the result is of this
6 question? Because with floodway expansion, it
7 doesn't change anything with respect to the 700
8 year, whether it is existing or expanded floodway
9 it is the same water level profile.
10 MS. CLIFTON: To some citizens of
11 Manitoba and Canada, this means absolutely
12 everything, Mr. McNeil. I have given a copy of
13 the KGS report which Mr. Carson has authored, I
14 have showed him the chart on page 28 and asked him
15 to explain.
16 MR. CARSON: Yes, I must say that I
17 was looking at our appendix B of the safe study
18 report, which was describing the analysis for an
19 one in 700 year floodway, whereas you are
20 referring to a table in the main report that
21 refers to the comparison for a one in 500 year
22 floodway. And the difference there was not 9.7
23 that I quoted, but $13 million, the difference
24 between state of nature only and operation above
25 state of nature to as high as 778 feet. That was
00935
1 the $51 million that you quoted. But if you
2 operated only to the state of nature, it would be
3 $38 million.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: I can't see how this is
5 relevant to the consideration before us. Nobody
6 is arguing that there aren't significant costs, or
7 there would not be significant costs.
8 MS. CLIFTON: My final question,
9 Mr. Chair, with your thanks and your patience, it
10 goes again on the options for Winnipeg city
11 protection, and Mr. Carson was quite eloquent on
12 this point in terms of -- and you have the report,
13 correct me if I'm not accurate -- whether or not
14 it was socially acceptable to sacrifice one group
15 of citizens for the salvation of another. I
16 believe this came up four times in the report, Mr.
17 Chair; am I right, Mr. Carson?
18 MR. CARSON: I must say it was four
19 years ago, I believe there were some references to
20 that but I can't recall.
21 MS. CLIFTON: My final question is
22 that if we assume that this is socially acceptable
23 to do, does at any time the protection of the city
24 require the sacrifice of the homes and properties
25 upstream of the inlet structure?
00936
1 MR. MCNEIL: The only way to answer
2 that is to say that under rule 2, when the flood
3 is large enough, the water level in the city will
4 be held constant two feet below the primary dykes,
5 and then there will be flooding artificially
6 upstream of the inlet control structure. And for
7 a '97 event with today's floodway, the extent of
8 that artificial flooding would be to Ste. Agathe.
9 And for a 700 year event, the extent of that
10 flooding would be to Morris.
11 MS. CLIFTON: Would that require the
12 sacrifice of homes and properties of residents
13 living upstream?
14 MR. MCNEIL: I'm sorry, I'm not going
15 to answer that question with respect to the word
16 "sacrifice."
17 MS. CLIFTON: Thanks for your time,
18 Mr. Chair.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Clifton.
20 Rivers West I believe is the last
21 group that wishes to do a bit of a
22 cross-examination today.
23 MR. FRANK: My name is Jeff Frank, I'm
24 a consultant working on behalf of Rivers West and
25 the Red River Floodway Trail Coalition. I
00937
1 appreciate the time and I will be very, very, very
2 brief.
3 I guess just by way of background, our
4 motivation with regard to the intervention in
5 these proceedings is to advocate on behalf of
6 recreation. We have heard from the Floodway
7 Authority that recreation is currently not part of
8 these proceedings, and we will be arguing that
9 later on -- so not to get into that. But with
10 regard to the EIS on page 4 -- I'm sorry, section
11 4 page 140 I believe is a schedule of activities.
12 Within that schedule of activities it appears to
13 indicate that there is a significant amount of
14 construction that's contemplated immediately upon
15 the issuance of the environmental license. Part
16 of that construction, as illustrated in the EIS
17 includes the immediate start of construction on
18 two bridges, PTH 59 south and the Trans Canada
19 Highway.
20 So question one, is that still the
21 general schedule for that construction?
22 MR. THOMSON: Jim Thomson. Those
23 schedules are still fairly preliminary. Actually,
24 another one of the rail bridges is also scheduled
25 at the present time to start at that same time,
00938
1 the Emerson sub also starts in that same time
2 frame.
3 MR. FRANK: So you are well advanced
4 in construction documents, I mean, this is ready
5 to tender presumably?
6 MR. THOMSON: No, we are still in the
7 early stages of final design. We are pushing very
8 hard to have the engineering completed in time to
9 get tenders. Actually we are now looking at
10 probably tenders in July, work start up in
11 September on the bridge works.
12 MR. FRANK: Again, our motivation is
13 with regard to recreation. Do these bridges
14 currently include provision for bicycle and
15 pedestrian crossings?
16 MR. THOMSON: The TransCanada bridge
17 has a 1.5-meter widening on the roadway structure
18 to allow for bicycles. No sidewalks if that's
19 part of your question on either structure. I
20 think 59 also, but I'm not certain of that. We
21 can advise you of that.
22 MR. FRANK: Okay. In the event that
23 recreation does return to the table as part of an
24 obligation of the licence, is there ample time to
25 include those provisions, if they are deemed to be
00939
1 necessary, in the construction of those
2 facilities?
3 MR. MCNEIL: Doug McNeil speaking. At
4 the current time, because Rivers West has
5 highlighted which is bridges it is interested in
6 pedestrian and cycling crossings, we are reviewing
7 the safety aspect of those proposals and we will
8 be getting back to Rivers West, your group, very
9 shortly. And if the answer is yes, that those
10 will be provided for, there is still time.
11 MR. FRANK: So there is still time to
12 include those?
13 MR. MCNEIL: That's why we are dealing
14 with this now, yes.
15 MR. FRANK: That was a concern of ours
16 and that's why I'm asking the question, so I
17 appreciate the answer, thank you.
18 My other question, and this just
19 occurred to me, I guess, Mr. McNeil, with regard
20 to something that you mentioned to Cooks Creek,
21 talking about the drainage structures. And I'm
22 not familiar with what they all entail, but you
23 referred to them, and I think I quote correctly,
24 as a value added component to the project. That
25 is that you don't really have to enlarge these
00940
1 culverts or weirs, I'm not sure what the exact
2 component is, but you are electing to do so
3 because it adds value to some component for the
4 public purposes. Is that a fair statement?
5 MR. MCNEIL: Sure. I didn't use the
6 word value added, but certainly we have to remove
7 these things anyway, and there is always
8 improvements to drainage systems, so we will try
9 and accommodate their requests for an increase in
10 capacity.
11 MR. FRANK: Thank you. Are there
12 other such components of the project? The cost
13 estimates that's in the EIS is rather general, so
14 I'm curious if there are other so-called -- I
15 think you used the value added but I am not
16 sure -- but nevertheless, things of that same
17 nature in the project?
18 MR. THOMSON: Again, on the bridge
19 works, we are adding a number of, I will call them
20 safety features. Starting with St. Mary's Road
21 the plan is to renew that bridge on a new
22 alignment taking out substandard curves at both
23 the north and south ends of that structure, as
24 well as improving the sight lines from Courchene
25 Drive, the road that comes across the inlet
00941
1 control structure. That approach is too close to
2 the bridge on St. Mary's Road and it is very poor
3 visibility, so we are moving that to the north, so
4 improving that. The TransCanada Highway, we are
5 going to make changes to the ramps. Let me get my
6 directions here. When you are northbound on the
7 Perimeter Highway to go eastbound on the
8 TransCanada, again taking out substandard curves
9 on that ramp. And both the east and westbound
10 structures will become three laned, there will be
11 an acceleration/deceleration lane on both the east
12 and westbound directions.
13 MR. FRANK: Those all sound like
14 prudent safety measures.
15 MR. THOMSON: They are. And then
16 Highway 15 we are twinning again, because it is
17 at, the present capacity on the two lane structure
18 is exceeding standard, so we are bringing it to a
19 four lane structure.
20 MR. FRANK: So everything else is kind
21 of prudent safety measures.
22 MR. THOMSON: Bringing the existing,
23 again the existing structures to the standard of
24 today.
25 MR. FRANK: So no other so-called
00942
1 value added components that are part of the
2 project, everything is just going to straight, you
3 know, what is required for this project with a
4 prudent, safety component to it; is that correct?
5 MR. MCNEIL: Is it a public safety
6 component, is that what you are asking?
7 MR. FRANK: No, I was curious about
8 this whole value added concept. I mean, obviously
9 we are going to discuss recreation as a value
10 added concept.
11 MR. MCNEIL: I was wondering when you
12 were going to get there actually.
13 MR. FRANK: Were you really?
14 MR. MCNEIL: I didn't think you were
15 really interested in drainage structures. It has
16 been a long day, sorry.
17 MR. FRANK: Yes, I know, and I am
18 really impressed with the work that you guys have
19 to do up there, I have to tell you. But this
20 concept of value added is obviously something that
21 we are going to pursue in our approach. And the
22 discussion of drainage as a value added feature,
23 I'm wondering what other value added features are
24 in the project. For example, you mentioned
25 drainage, it has been publicized in the media, the
00943
1 virtual reality tour of the floodway at some cost,
2 which I would argue is a valued added feature and
3 certainly something that's worth considering. Are
4 there other features of the project that would
5 fall into that kind of category?
6 MR. MCNEIL: With respect to
7 recreation?
8 MR. FRANK: No, with respect to the
9 overall project?
10 MR. MCNEIL: Why don't we just jump
11 straight to recreation?
12 MR. FRANK: Recreation is not part of
13 the project as far as --
14 MR. MCNEIL: What I will say
15 Mr. Frank -- because it is almost 5:00 o'clock,
16 and I'm tired and I think everybody else is, and I
17 would like to be able to answer your questions --
18 is that what we have said publicly, first of all,
19 all of the recreation concepts are just that, they
20 are concepts, they are work in progress. And one
21 thing that I wanted to add is that we are not
22 going to accept any recreation proposal that might
23 have a significant adverse effect to the
24 environment. So we have carved it off of there.
25 We have, however, under a budget line called
00944
1 special projects, included -- and it is no
2 specific funding amount for this -- but we have
3 included funding for moving dirt twice to
4 accommodate whatever recreation proposal, and the
5 trails certainly seem to be one of the stronger of
6 the proposals, to move dirt to provide a base for
7 the trails or provide a base for the parking lots
8 or what have you. And the reason that -- that's a
9 premium, so it is valued added. We don't have to
10 do that, as you know. And we can't do it with the
11 kind of equipment that we are going to excavate
12 the channel, we have to bring in smaller more
13 appropriate equipment. So it has to be moved
14 twice no matter what. So we are not too excited
15 about getting your plans finalized, because it is
16 in a sense like a landscaping feature on this
17 flood protection project to be able to incorporate
18 something like a trail for whatever use. And what
19 we have said publicly, despite some of the
20 comments yesterday that people are getting mixed
21 messages, what we said publicly is that whatever
22 proposal comes along, the proponent of that
23 recreation or economic proposal will be
24 responsible for whatever approvals, will be
25 responsible for public consultation, because as
00945
1 you know, some of the municipalities are very
2 concerned about promoting recreation and causing
3 vandalism and fires and the whole bit, and will be
4 responsible for funding the development of that
5 proposal.
6 And we see that as a longer term
7 project, and it is no different with the existing
8 floodway, whatever is being proposed could be
9 incorporated in the existing floodway, it has no
10 impact on the expansion of the floodway. And I
11 know some of the landscape architects have come up
12 with a squiggly design for the floodway, but ain't
13 gonna happen, the design for the capacity
14 upgrading, because the primary purpose of this
15 project is flood protection, the design and shape
16 of this project are not going to change.
17 MR. FRANK: As you know, we have
18 acknowledged all of that, Mr. McNeil, so there is
19 nothing new there. And as you know, we disagree
20 with you, and we will make presentations to
21 explain that disagreement.
22 All I'm trying to get at is, and you
23 mentioned the special projects fund, that's really
24 all I was trying to get at, is that there appears
25 to be money within the project that is not
00946
1 specifically allocated for specific technical
2 requirements of the project, but rather for these
3 so-called value added or special projects. And
4 that's all I was trying to get at, is what the
5 range of those things are. And I appreciate that
6 there is money to move dirt twice, that's great.
7 Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr.
8 Chairman.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Frank.
10 Not bad timing, that brings us to 5 to 5:00 and we
11 are finished today's business. We meet again on
12 Monday morning, 9:00 o'clock in Oakbank at the
13 Oakbank United Church. I'm not familiar enough
14 with Oakbank to know where it is, but give
15 yourself five or ten minutes extra to find it.
16 On Monday we will continue -- order
17 please -- on Monday we will commence with a
18 continuation of the cross-examination. The three
19 municipalities -- order please -- and the
20 Coalition for Flood Protection North will be
21 conducting a cross-examination on Monday morning.
22 Later on, on Monday we have a couple of
23 presentations -- or one presentation by Cooks
24 Creek Conservation District, as well as by the
25 Member of Parliament for Selkirk Interlake, and
00947
1 then the start of presentation by the three
2 municipalities.
3 Four days, and we are all still
4 standing, so have a good weekend.
5 (Adjourned at 5:00 p.m.)
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
00948
1 OFFICIAL EXAMINER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3
4
5 I, CECELIA REID, a duly appointed Official
6 Examiner in the Province of Manitoba, do hereby
7 certify the foregoing pages are a true and correct
8 transcript of my Stenotype notes as taken by me at
9 the time and place hereinbefore stated.
10
11
12
13 ----------------------------
14 Cecelia Reid
15 Official Examiner, Q.B.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25